Dear Editor,
News of an attorney withdrawing from the trial of a city businessman allegedly seen kicking his daughter lying on the ground in a store has caught my attention. The news article said the lawyer has withdrawn himself from representing a city businessman, who is accused of brutally assaulting his 25-year-old daughter, for a charge filed under the Domestic Violence Act. According to the lawyer, “certain ethical and other considerations” have influenced his decision to withdraw and discontinue all further involvement in the case. There is a joke that you can’t use “lawyers” and “ethics” in the same sentence. I had to rebuke my friend Suresh that “not all lawyers are crooks, and money-hungry.” I do wish that more of them would step up and fight cases for the renegotiation of the rapacious oil contracts in the national interest.
There was one lawyer in Berbice, now a senior counsel, who facilitated the unauthorized sale of my aunt’s property through someone given full power of attorney. There was another lawyer in Georgetown, a senior counsel, who was paid a million dollars to process transports. When I asked him why after 13 years, we don’t have the transports, he got angry and said he was not going to do them anymore. He was not going to refund any money until I confronted him and threatened exposure in the media, and he refunded 20%. I suggest that when “Senior Counsel” is being contemplated that there is an invitation to the public for comments before the award is given.
How about all those lawyers, charging high prices, that defend murderers as a specialty in their legal practice? Are there not ethics issues there too, or does big money remove the ethics considerations? I understand that an accused has a right to legal representation regardless of one’s guilt or innocence, because that’s how the justice system works. So, I am trying to figure out how withdrawing from an assault and battery case is such a big ethics problem compared to lawyers who like to take murder cases.
Those who have followed the Neesa Gopaul trial – a most heinous, devilish, gruesome act of murder of a young schoolgirl whose body was found in a suitcase – must be wondering about this ethics thing. Why would anyone want to fight for the two killers found guilty, to have reduced sentences, or to go free? How about victims’ rights? My question is why did these two conspirators not get the death penalty for this evil murder of young Neesa whose life was snuffed out by those demons? Neesa’s two murderers got their sentences reduced. One was reduced from 106 years to 45 years, and 96 years to 45 years. The case went to the Caribbean Court of Justice where their lawyers are seeking to get sentences reduced or get new trails. How do lawyers feel when they get murderers off? Do they do high fives after? Do they feel a sense of accomplishment?
Many people whom have followed the case, wish the murderers of Neesa Gopaul would rot in jail. They have committed premeditated murder and must accept their punishment. What happened to Neesa was a failure at many levels – immediate family, school, community, and police. This must not happen again.
Sincerely,
Dr. Jerry Jailall
