Pleasant Bridgewater fails to overturn ban

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

An ex-PLP MP, who was one of two defendants in the $25m extortion mistrial involving Hollywood actor John Travolta, has failed to overturn the “improper conduct” ban on her practicing as an attorney.

Pleasant Bridgewater, also previously a Senator, had sought to overturn her disbarment on procedural grounds but the Court of Appeal ruled that the challenge had “no merit” and rejected it via a June 17, 2025, verdict.

However, Appeal justice Indra Charles, in writing the court’s unanimous verdict acknowledged that the issue raised by Ms Bridgewater and her attorney, Harvey Tynes KC, was a “novel one” and suggested that the Bahamas Bar Council’s disciplinary tribunal should alter the process for delivering its decisions so as to prevent “potential confusion and procedural entanglement”.

Ms Bridgewater had attempted to challenge two separate “improper conduct” rulings that led to her disbarment on the basis that the Bar Council’s disciplinary tribunal breached the Legal Profession Act’s section 40(1) by failing to issue its “findings on the facts of the case” before making its Order.

The two complaints against her were made in 2009 around the time she became embroiled in the Travolta case. Both alleged she failed to a total of nearly $300,000, received in her capacity as an attorney, to the rightful receiving party - one of whom was CIBC Caribbean (Bahamas). Ms Bridgewater was said to have blamed “personal issues and difficulties” for the oversight.

CIBC Caribbean (Bahamas), in letters to the Bar Council’s ethics committee on March 4, 2009, and again on July 9, 2009, alleged that Ms Bridgewater had received “$179,798 in 2008 for the purpose of paying out an outstanding mortgage on behalf of Theophilus and Velma Cox”.

The bank alleged that the former MP and Senator “failed to make the payment, and also failed to render an account for the funds received”. Ms Bridgewater failed to reply to the ethics committee’s call more than ten years later, on August 21, 2019, for a response to the allegations, and the complaint was referred to the Bar Council’s disciplinary tribunal in November that year.

The latter body found Ms Bridgewater “guilty of improper conduct” in a written decision delivered on February 15, 2023, almost 15 years since the complaint first arose. The tribunal ordered that she be disbarred and stopped from practicing as an attorney.

The second complaint against Ms Bridgewater, which related to a land purchase at Old Bahama Bay resort in Grand Bahama where she acted for both parties, was made against her on September 20, 2018, by Gary Belcher. He alleged that she had failed to pass $116,300 received to pay Stamp Duty and other taxes on the deal to the Government - the very practice it is now seeking to stamp out.

“The transaction closed and the seller received the proceeds of sale. However, the appellant [Ms Bridgewater] failed to make the payment of the Stamp Tax or record the documents of transfer, and has failed to render an account for the funds received,” the Court of Appeal noted.

“For at least nine years, the appellant accepted that she has failed to complete the engagement - specifically the stamping and recording of the conveyance for the property - and sought, in writing and verbally, time within which to raise the funds to stamp and record the conveyance.”

The second “improper conduct” verdict against Ms Bridgewater was made on the same day as the first - February 15, 2023. She filed an appeal five days later seeking to set aside both verdicts on the basis that the disciplinary tribunal “acted in breach of the mandatory procedural requirements” in the Legal Profession Act by “failing to include a statement of its findings of the facts of the case” before the order.

The Act’s section 40(1) stipulates that “every Order made by the disciplinary tribunal... shall be prefaced by a statement of their findings on the facts of the case and shall be signed by the chairman of the tribunal”. The Orders relating to both decisions have yet to be issued on the basis that Ms Bridgewater’s appeal blocks this from happening.

The Court of Appeal, in its decision, said Ms Bridgewater’s case rested on both decisions being “woefully inadequate” because there were not preceded by the factual findings statement. However, the court ruled that it “is simply not true” that both decisions failed to state the reasons for why she was being disbarred.

In the CIBC Caribbean case, the disciplinary tribunal said Ms Bridgewater admitted to failing to use the $179,000 received to satisfy the Cox’s mortgage. “Moreover, there has been no accounting by the attorney for what happened to the funds nor any explanation as to why they are not still on the client’s account,” the tribunal added.

“The attorney has alluded to having experienced personal issues and difficulties which, while regrettable, are no excuse or explanation for the attorney’s failure in this regard. It is trite law, and part of the entrenched conveyancing practice and etiquette among attorneys at the Bahamas Bar and worldwide, that funds sent to an attorney and held in an escrow account to be applied for a specific purpose impose upon the attorney in that instance the highest degree of trusteeship.

“Funds earmarked for a specific purpose must only be used for that purpose and no other. The attorney is not only under a duty to act upon instructions received in a timely and efficient manner, but is also under a duty to account for funds held in trust by them for a client.”

Noting that the issue had been outstanding for 14 years, the disciplinary tribunal wrote: “The tribunal has seen no evidence of any attempt by the attorney to make good the loss beyond her mention of her desire or intent to do so. There is also no evidence that the attorney has or can otherwise account for the funds. They seemingly ‘vanished’.

“The bank has suffered extreme prejudice as a result of the failure of the attorney to act in accordance with her duties. The fact that the funds were not applied to their purpose, and have not been accounted for in any way, compounded by the length of time that has gone by with the complete failure to mitigate by the attorney, as well as her failure to respond to the ethics committee, constitute breaches of the conduct expected of attorneys of the most egregious sort.”

As for Mr Belcher’s case, the disciplinary tribunal found the funds received to pay Stamp Tax due on the sale “were not applied for their purpose and have not been accounted for in any way”.

It added: “As the attorney represented both sides, this Tribunal finds as fact that she was at all material times seized of the full amount of the Stamp Duty in the amount of $116,300, and the Tribunal finds that the attempt by the attorney to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.”

As a result, the Court of Appeal ruled: “There is therefore no merit in the appellant’s contention that the factual basis upon which the ‘orders’ were made is unclear. When the Tribunal’s respective decisions are considered in their entirety, the underlying reasoning is plainly discernible.

“For the foregoing reasons, both appeals are dismissed with costs to the respondent (Bahamas Bar Council) to be taxed, if not agreed. Both decisions of the tribunal are affirmed.” However, the Court of Appeal suggested that the Bar Council’s disciplinary tribunal look at procedural changes to prevent similar challenges from being mounted in future.

“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),”it added. “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 may consider preparing the section 40(1) order contemporaneously with its written decision/ruling, bearing in mind that the order cannot be filed with the Registrar” until other procedural requirements in law are met.

Ms Bridgewater was tried before the Supreme Court alongside her client, ambulance worker Tarino Lightbourne, over an alleged plot to extort $25m from Mr Travolta following the death of his son in The Bahamas.

The trial, though, was declared a mis-trial after former PLP MP, Picewell Forbes, told a PLP convention that Ms Bridgewater had been found ‘not guilty’ and was a “free woman” while the jury were still deliberating. The charges against Ms Bridgewater and her client were dropped at the request of Mr Travolta and his family, who elected not to go through with a new trial.

Comments

TalRussell says...

Embarrassment would've been a good start! --That over all the passing years, she has not demonstrated a change in attitude, would be sufficient c+* cause, not only for the continuation of disbarment, but a "'get lost' ruling that would permanently prevent her from ever reapplying for reinstatement. -- "Could've least made some attempt at fakin' some, shame." -- She has never felt like she needed to confess to plenty of everything. -- HER coming to Jesus moment. -- Yes?

Posted 19 June 2025, 11:14 a.m. Suggest removal

birdiestrachan says...

She no doubt made. Mistakes. As king David a man of God's heart. And Peter who denied Christ
But after all is said and done she is not a bad person. A little silly maybe to trusting for sure

Posted 19 June 2025, 2:12 p.m. Suggest removal

TalRussell says...

@ComradeBirdie, are you sure, sure, you're using the correct amount of....**too trustin' usage?" --- Precisely, how many additional years, **she deserve to fail at** completing the engagement?" -- Fred Mitchell, even holds classes on PLP MPs', at least pretend to act, right. --- Yes?

Posted 19 June 2025, 3:01 p.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment