Embattled lawyer to face disbarment hearing on June 16

Vonda Pile has been given just over two weeks to find and brief legal representation as she fights to keep her name on the roll of attorneys in Barbados.

The embattled attorney, who was sentenced in September 2019 to three years in prison (less 94 days) for theft of a client’s money, has been ordered by a panel of Court of Appeal judges — Chief Justice Leslie Haynes, Justice Francis Belle, and Justice Margaret Reifer — to return to Supreme Court No. 1 on June 16, when her case is scheduled to be heard.

Pile appeared before the appeal judges on Friday morning following an adjournment last week, when she was absent.

Chief Justice Haynes informed Pile that the report had been forwarded to his office by the Disciplinary Committee, which recommended that her name be removed from the roll of attorneys.

Pile responded, saying she had not received any notification, by notice or email to appear before the court until recently.

“Had I received such, I would have been here,” she said. “I intend to instruct counsel in relation to this matter. I have only received the document called a take notice . . . on Sunday . . . to come to this court this morning.”

Pile then queried whether there were any other documents that needed to be served on her, stating: “If I am going to be properly instructing counsel to deal with the matter on my behalf, I need every single document that is in Civil Appeal No.1/2025”.

The Chief Justice then read Section 21 of the Legal Profession Act, Part 5, which deals with the issue of discipline where a case of professional misconduct has been made out against an attorney-at-law.

He concluded that “this court does not need any other document — other than the report that was forwarded to the Chief Justice from the Disciplinary Committee” — to make a ruling or “other orders” on its recommendation and reasons to have Pile removed from the roll.

“So that, truth be told Ms Pile, we have had that report for a number of months now . . . . You are familiar with the law, you have an understanding of what is happening next and that is the consideration by this court of whether it should confirm the recommendation order or make an order confirming the recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee or such other order as it thinks fit,” he added.

But Andrew Thornhill KC, who is representing the Barbados Bar Association along with other lawyers, urged the court to proceed with the matter.

He said Pile had received the report around February, giving her “more than enough time to instruct counsel”.

“It is the report that ought to stir her into action with respect to retaining counsel and not the take notice,” Thornhill insisted.

Solicitor General Anika Jackson SC echoed Thorhill’s submission.

“This matter is long outstanding. It’s a serious matter; we are all here. You have stated very clearly that as an attorney-at-law, Ms Pile is and should be well aware of what those proceedings entailed and had sufficient time to do exactly what she is asking now to do,” Jackson said.

However, lead attorney for the Disciplinary Committee Rita Evans disagreed.

“My position is if Ms Pile only received notice of the hearing of the proceedings on Sunday, granted that she had the report in February of this year, the fact remains that she would have only received notice of the hearing on Sunday. And if she is indicating to the court, as any other litigant, that she needs time to instruct counsel, that is not an extraordinary request,” Evans submitted.

After conferring on the issue, the panel agreed to grant the adjournment, stating that it was in possession of an affidavit of service showing that Pile had been served at the Supreme Court Complex on May 22.

“We are of the view that that was sufficient time to brief counsel and have counsel appear this morning. That having been said, we are prepared to adjourn this matter to Monday, June 16, at 9:30 a.m., to finally deal with this matter. You have now have 17 days, which this court considers sufficient time, to brief counsel and to come prepared to deal with the matter,” Chief Justice Haynes ruled.