General Legal Council Goes Hard on ‘OJ’ Elrington

The General Legal Council has issued a decision in a matter involving attorney Orson “OJ” Elrington, following a complaint that was brought against him by a former client.  Earlier this year, we ran a story regarding a resident of Dangriga who sought Elrington’s legal services in an attempt to collect social security benefits after he lost his wife in December 2021.  Elrington was also retained to pursue a constitutional claim challenging certain provisions in the Social Security Act as being discriminatory, as well as to recover the widower’s pension and damages.  It is subsequently alleged that Elrington entered into a settlement agreement with the Social Security Board without the consent of his client whose instructions were for the matter to be taken to court.  Elrington reportedly settled for a lesser sum, well below what Pastor Dozie anticipated had the matter gone to trial.  Dozie later filed a complaint with the GLC which was heard back in February.  Having considered all the evidence that was presented on both sides of the argument, the council, comprised of five attorneys and a High Court judge, determined that Elrington is guilty of grave professional misconduct in respect of representing his client, Pastor Dozie.  Earlier today, we sought a reaction from Elrington regarding the decision.

 

Orson “OJ” Elrington, Attorney-at-law

“I am an officer of the court, an officer of the law, so I always respect the processes and decisions, but that does not mean that we have to agree with them whatsoever.  And in this case, I most certainly don’t agree with the conclusions of the GLC… but it is still a live issue before the courts and so the details of that I will not get into.”

 

Isani Cayetano

“In a situation such as this, is there any room for appealing the outcome from the GLC, or how does that aspect work?”

 

Orson “OJ” Elrington

“There is always, our legal process always allows the opportunity for decisions to be reviewed.  So there is always, essentially, room for decision to be reviewed.”

 

Isani Cayetano

“What happens next, because if I understand the decision now says, essentially that an action was taken by yourself that was not necessarily approved or wasn’t necessarily the instructions given by your client.”

 

Orson “OJ” Elrington

“The question that was before the GLC was whether or not the client consented to the settlement, right?  That was the question, not anything more than that.  Whether or not there was a consent to a settlement.  We said that the client orally consented, alright.  Regrettably, what happened to state it once more is that we took on a matter essentially pro bono.  That is one of the things that is lost in all of this equation.  It is essentially what is called a contingency basis which is also one of the issues that was in the matter.  We took on a matter that would merely be able to cover the minimum filing fees for the matter, a huge constitutional matter.  What we did again, which is lost in all of this, is challenge the constitutionality of the Social Security Act which we said discriminated against men, and as you know, the settlement effectively said that the Social Security Board and the Government of Belize would have amended the legislation because it was unconstitutional, which they did.”