PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Fiji Independent Legal Services Commission
You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Fiji Independent Legal Services Commission >> 2022 >> [2022] FJILSC 8

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Chief Registrar v Rigsby [2022] FJILSC 8 (13 September 2022)

IN THE INDEPENDENT LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION
AT SUVA


ILSC CASE NO. 006 of 2021

BETWEEN:


CHIEF REGISTRAR
APPLICANT


AND:


TERESIA RIGSBY
RESPONDENT



Counsel: Mr. Shamil Ali for the Applicant

Ms. Teresia Rigsby In Person.


Date of Hearing: 12th May 2022
Written submissions: 21st and 22nd July 2022
Date of Ruling: 13th September 2022


SANCTION RULING


  1. On the 01st April 2021 the Chief Register ("CR") filed this application against the Respondent ("The Practitioner”) in this Commission with 7 counts of professional misconduct.
  2. On the 12th of May 2022 when the charges were explained the practitioner pleaded not guilty and did not accept liability to counts 1-6 but the Practitioner pleaded guilty and accepted liability to count No. 7 an allegation that the practitioner had professionally misconducted himself in the following manner:

COUNT 7

ALLEGATION OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT pursuant to section 82(1)(a) and section 108(2) of the Legal Practitioners Decree of 2009.

PARTICULARS

TERESIA RIGSBY, a legal practitioner, failed to provide the Chief Registrar with a sufficient and satisfactory explanation in writing of matters contained in the complaint of Lawrence Dinesh Ram dated 16th December 2019 as required by the Chief Registrar by a notice dated 31st January 2020 pursuant to section 105 of the Legal Practitioners Decree 2009 and thereafter failed to respond to a subsequent reminder notice dated 6th August 2020 issued by the Chief Registrar pursuant to section 108(1) of the Legal Practitioners Decree 2009, which conduct is a breach of section 108(2) of the Legal Practitioners Decree 2009 and is an act of professional misconduct.


  1. As the practitioner at the very first hearing of the charges on the 12th of May 2022 freely admitted as aforesaid the allegation made by count No. 7 was correct and this Commission finds the said allegation established by her own plea of guilt.
  2. When first appearing before the Commission in answer to the allegation the Practitioner readily admitted the said allegation and was granted time to mitigate.
  3. Having heard and seen that mitigation of the Respondent and the submission of Applicant I will now proceed to consider and pronounce the appropriate sanction for the said count No. 7.
  4. The practitioner has appeared before the Commission once before on a very similar application in November 2015 facing a similar charge, of which the Commission has taken a very lenient view of her offending in Chief Registrar v Teresia Rigsby, Case No.006.2015 (dated 29 November 2015 and handed down on 3 December 2015).
  5. “Failing to respond” to the Chief Registrar is a serious form of professional misconduct. As echoed in many a ruling it is not a mere lapse but is a serious and callous disregard of, and an affront to the authority of the regulator of the legal Practitioners. Majority of the matters submitted to this Commission as I observe are for the failures to respond of this nature. Issuing of notices pursuant to section 105 of the Legal Practitioners Decree 2009 is the first step in the investigative process. The failure to respond in a timely manner to any notice, a practitioner may receive from the Legal Practitioners’ Unit (LPU) thus scuttles and retards the prompt inquiry and investigation in to complaints made by the public. The delay so caused certainly will result in a serious loss of confidence in and erode the efficacy of the entire disciplinary process. Thus “failure to respond” should be considered with utmost seriousness unless, there be a reasonable and acceptable cause for the non-response and at least subsequently a sufficient and satisfactory response also be provided to the said notice. Thus this charge in my view raises an important issue in relation to the ethical duty and the professional obligation upon members of the profession to respond in a timely manner to any notice they may receive from the Legal Practitioners’ Unit of the Office of the Chief Registrar which is endowed with the serious responsibility of investigating complaints against members of the legal profession.
  6. The previous Commissioners, especially Mr. Justice Madigan has emphasized the importance and the need for practitioners to respond in a timely manner to such notices in the decisions of Chief Registrar v Luseyane Ligabalavu [2012] FJILSC 3; Case No.003 and 004.2012 (23 October 2012) and Chief Registrar v John Rabuku [2013] FJILSC 6; Case No.013.2013 (30 July 2013) and has considered the perennial nature the problem of not responding in Chief Registrar v Teresia Rigsby, Case No.006.2015 (dated 29 November 2015) being the previous similar matter against the Respondent herself.
  7. The sentiments expressed in the said decisions were thus, the Chief Registrar is the regulatory head of the legal profession. It is his function to ensure that the profession is competently and professionally conducted and if practitioners do not co-operate with him in that regard then his mission is frustrated. Failure to respond to the Registrar is therefore a serious breach of professional duty not only because it is a clear breach of statutory duty as provided for in the Legal Practitioners Decree 2009 but also because it is a professional courtesy which should be extended to the head of the profession.
  8. It is accepted by the practitioner, that she was served personally with this s.108 notice. The practitioner pleads for leniency given her remorse, her early plea and her regret for not replying to the, Chief Registrar. This is not the first time that this Practitioner Ms. Rigsby has been before the Commission for a similar violation. She was found to have been guilty of professional misconduct in the matter of Chief Registrar v Teresia Rigsby, Case No.006 of 015 (dated 29 November 2015). According to the applicant’s submission the practitioner had been charged and pleaded to the said offence and was suspended from practice for a period of one month and ordered to pay $500.00 to the Commission.
  9. This previous determination can afford her little or no mercy from the Commission but will compound the culpability of this violation.
  10. In her mitigation she admits that she failed to respond. However her position is that the letter of response dated 22nd September 2020 was prepared by her, however had not been forwarded to the LPU. A copy of a said letter is annexed at paragraph 5 of her submissions and says that she had misplaced the complaint forwarded to her. However at paragraphs 3 and 4 she admits engaging in practice to the extent that she consulted the complainant and also that she had caused certain papers to be filed in respect of the complainant’s said matter. According to the submission of the applicant, the respondent has not held a valid practising certificate since 1st March, 2018 (para 3.7.5). This is a virtual admission of engaging in legal practice in or about 10th June, 2019.
  11. The Practitioner has failed to respond for several months to the notice dated 4th February, 2020. Then in September, 2020 she claims to have attempted to inform that she has misplaced the copy of the complaint and appears to have not responded up to-date. She has failed to transmit that letter too.
  12. She is 60 years of age and had been in practice since 2009. She claims to have been going through some difficulty due to relocation which appears to be the apparent reason for the lapse. Her excuse for not responding to the complaint is that she was served with the notice during a period when he was so relocating her office.
  13. The conduct of the legal Practitioner clearly involves a substantial failure to maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence. The purpose of sanction is deterrence, both personal and general. The comparable cases for sanction are Chief Registrar v Lutumailagi [2020] FJILSC 4 (24 March 2020), Chief Registrar v Cavubati [2019] FJILSC 3 (13 June 2019) and Chief Registrar v Khan [2019] FJILSC 4 (13 September 2019). The legal practitioner does not deny any lack of means to comply with a monetary sanction.
  14. I observe that the Respondent Practitioner has not held a valid practising certificate since 1st March, 2018. Considering the fact that she has had a similar offending I am reluctantly compelled and required to impose a sufficient and adequate sanction
  15. In assessing the sanction in this instance the Commission will be conscious that the practitioner has freely admitted her error as alleged by count No 7. She will be sanctioned to a reasonable period of suspension considering, the accepted tariff and circumstances of violation.
  16. As the practitioner admits the charge at first appearance, she would ordinarily be penalized by a one-month suspension, but given that it is her second time to offend in this manner and that she had not provided a response even later and also the fact of several other charges are pending before this Commission the suspension must be extended for a longer period. Accordingly, I impose the following sanction for Count No. 7.

Sanction imposed for Count No. 7

  1. Orders of the Commission are:

Dated the 13th day of September, 2022.


Justice Gihan Kulatunga
Commissioner


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJILSC/2022/8.html