I have noticed on two occasions you caused to be published two articles in your well-read weekly periodical addressing issues pertaining to our local legal profession. Whereas I could not agree more with the essence and intent of the first article which made reference to this legal practitioner – I do believe that he may be “misplaced”.
In that particular circumstance I beg of him to “throw the first stone if he is without sin” in respect of the caption: “Lawyers must not be too anxious about making money” in your issue of Friday, November 07, 2014.
I would like to ask just “a couple” of questions here in reaction to his comments in the aforementioned article:
• Are his sentiments provoked by his own lack of outstanding performance in the profession?
• Or – were they influenced by the negative perception held of him by several of his colleagues and many members of the general population from whom he could have received as many clients had his modus operandi been different?
• Is it that in the twilight of his career he’s forced to give up on making money as he stands no chance anymore for reasons ought to be known by him?
• Does his reputation precede him?
Just aside and for easy comprehension of my concerns here today – “reputation” is what people think of one while character is “who one is”.
I therefore ask boldly – what do people generally think of that writer and who is he really?
What is his claim to fame or infamy in this one time “noble profession” here in Grenada, and how has he helped to preserve its nobility by his very practice over the years?
I would love to have some answers to those “couple” questions in order to appreciate where this individual is coming from so that I can move forward with him as he proceeds to write.
All for now I can consider his messages quite interesting but without appropriate answers I am one of the many who believe (for now) that the writer is the wrong messenger (if the message is to be taken seriously).
His second article in your Friday, November 28, 2014 edition provokingly captioned: “The Lawyers Cartel” attracts so much contempt for the messenger – that it isn’t funny.
One leading colleague professional was overheard to have said that his three weeks ago rants in the local papers seemed to have embolden him, and this time he may have gone a step too far. If that is any indication, we may very well see a slew of responses to this “gentleman” (and I use the term loosely here out of respect for readers and the publishers).
I really thought that CARTEL as a noun means – an association of entities with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition. The best example coming to mind is – “the Colombian Drug Cartel”.
Historically – the word Cartel is used to refer to a coalition or cooperative arrangements between politicians intended to promote a mutual interest.
I can’t help but ask the question again – Is it because this individual who is generally perceived to be in the twilight of his career (with not much to show for it, except vitriol from distressed clients). I consider him to have moved rapidly from a “could be” to a “has been” without having an iota of a chance to ever be an “is”.
Imagine that he now feels that the most effective he can do at this stage is to besmirch the character of his colleagues – living and deceased?
Again, let’s face it – quite a number of lawyers (young and old, rookies and seniors) know exactly what this man is talking/ writing about in both issues of the New Today – but he just happens to be wrong man for those utterances to be taken seriously.
The big question is – should this man have been as successful as his legal colleagues he pinpointed and thus named as integral to “The Lawyers Cartel”, would he have been writing anything? Do I smell ENVY & JEALOUSY here? I am putting it to this man that an impeccably good and consistent reputation managed to get Grant Joseph and Co. on to the radar of foreign investors making inquiries to do business in Grenada at this present time, and their competence is well known.
From the days of old – the firms of Renwick & Payne, Lewis & Renwick, Henry, Henry & Bristol and more recently, Henry Hudson Phillip – have all been associated with Banks in Grenada. Could it be that even with whatever short-comings they may have, these said banks are not prepared to gamble with alternatives who all too often prove too thirsty for money (as per the insinuations of his first article)?
Sometimes we have to wonder if Cartels are not usually run by rogues of whatever discipline with the purpose of restricting competition. If that be so, then the four fingers pointing back at the finger pointer must be most important in this discourse.