NASSAU, BAHAMAS— The Court of Appeal has upheld the disbarment of former Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Member of Parliament and Senator Pleasant Bridgewater, affirming a disciplinary ruling by the Bahamas Bar Council that found her guilty of improper conduct involving mishandling of client funds in two separate cases.
The appellate court dismissed Bridgewater’s appeal and confirmed the February 2023 order striking her name from the Roll of Attorneys, concluding there was “no merit” in her legal challenge. The court also awarded costs to the Bar Council.
The two complaints involved FirstCaribbean International Bank and private client Gary Belcher. FirstCaribbean alleged that Bridgewater failed to use nearly $180,000 provided to discharge a mortgage in 2008, while Belcher in a 2018 complaint accused her of failing to pay stamp tax and properly record a conveyance after receiving funds for a real estate transaction.
Bridgewater appealed the Disciplinary Tribunal’s February 2023 decision, arguing that the Tribunal’s failure to issue a formal order signed by its chairman—as required under Section 40(1) of the Legal Profession Act—rendered the decision invalid. However, the Court found that the Tribunal’s written decision was sufficient and that Bridgewater’s right to appeal under Section 54 of the Act was not dependent on the issuance of a formal order.
In delivering the judgment, the Court emphasized that procedural rules should not be misused to undermine substantive disciplinary findings. Justice Charles wrote: “The Appellant could not seriously expect to impugn the disciplinary orders… solely on the basis that a formal order had not been drawn up.”
In a postscript to the ruling, the Court acknowledged that the procedural issue raised was novel but stressed the importance of consistency going forward:
“Undoubtedly, the issue raised by the Appellant is a novel one. The Respondent contends that the Tribunal’s established practice has been to issue a written decision (ruling) followed by a formal order under section 40(1). While no express timeframe is stipulated in the statute, it is generally understood that such orders are issued within a reasonable timeframe. But, this case illustrates the potential for confusion and procedural entanglement where the decisions and formal orders are not issued together. Moving forward, the Tribunal should issue the section 40(1) order contemporaneously with its written decision/ruling, ensuring clarity and safeguarding appellate rights.”
