Click here to print
Attorney Ernest Staine Can’t Pay
Mon, March 30, 2015
Another case which went to court today was the lawsuit against senior attorney Ernest Staine. He's being pressed by the court to return 230 thousand dollars which belongs to his former client Rita McField, which should have been done months ago.

He was to make final the sale of certain land transaction in 2014 that McField and Forward in Faith Ministries wanted to be dealt with, and then hold it in escrow for his clients. The problem is that he was supposed have handed the money over to his client McField, but he never did.

They then pressed the court to order him to do so, and disclosure of his finances shows that he does not have his clients' money; it appears that he spent what did not belong to him.

So, the court is compelling him to return the money by selling off his assets. The problem is that it's not so easily done, so the claimants are forced to wait. They attended a case management conference this evening to find out what exactly will Staine do to return this money. Here's what both sides told us when they came out of court:

Naima Barrow - Attorney for Ernest Staine
"Mr. Staine has done what the court has required and has gone above and beyond in seeking to make good the repayment of the monies. The court had ask for him to provide information to the claimant, which he has done and Mr. Staine is now in the process of selling some of his assets to pay back the monies that are due to the claimant. So, that's where he is."

Reporter
"Is there a specific timeframe that the court mandates for him to repay this money?"

Naima Barrow - Attorney for Ernest Staine
"No. It would be an impractical order to make. As you know it takes time and there is no telling what will affect the market, what will affect the buyers and the purchase price. The court I expect will be ask to be provided with regular reports to show the progress of things and that can be shown with emails between us and potentials purchasers. So, there is no order that has yet been made."

Daniel Ortiz
"Will your clients be reimbursed, will they be paid?"

Julie-ann Ellis Bradley - Attorney For Rita McField
"We are working towards that. We are working together with the other side to determine what are the best options. The interest from the very beginning has been to see the client get the monies which they had paid and I am hopeful that we will be able to arrive at some order that will see that being done and so we are to return in the morning to get that order finalized."

Daniel Ortiz
"What do you make of the attorney under question having to liquidate instead of having the money in hand to return to your clients?"

Julie-ann Ellis Bradley - Attorney For Rita McField
"The challenge is based on the information is that the monies really are not there and so then the law allows certain procedures to take place in order for a judgement to enforce his/her judgement and so those are the options."

Daniel Ortiz
"There is the criticism raised that because Mr. Staine is a prominent of the community, he is a well-known attorney, certain liberties were offered to him that other persons in the public wouldn't enjoy. Like if it was someone else who withheld this money, they would have already been charged criminally. How do you respond to that kind of criticism?"

Naima Barrow - Attorney for Ernest Staine
"That would be one that best answered by the DPP. As you know we are not responsible for dealing with the prosecution of crimes, but the DPP, I think would be able to explain it to you."

Daniel Ortiz
"As an observer, a person of the profession, would you support if the time comes for criminal action to be taken against this person under question?"

Julie-ann Ellis Bradley - Attorney For Rita McField
"I would say that criminal sanctions are in the purview of the police. It is an option that is always available to someone, if you feel that there has been a legal wrong committed against you. And it is an option that the clients to have and if they wish to proceed to make criminal complaints if they have, then it's for the police to take that aspect of it. I have no objection. It is their right and so, if they wish to do that, then I have no objection to that. That is the consequence that flows from the action. I speak as a member of the profession, as a fellow colleague of the defendant - it should not have happen and unfortunately the clients are placed in that position and it's something I take very seriously. It's something that nobody should expect, that an attorney should do that. There are codes of ethics that attorneys have to abide by. Unfortunately we've been put in this position."

We'll be there tomorrow to find out what Justice Abel will order Staine to do.

Close this window