BREAKING: General Legal Council Finds Orson Elrington “Guilty of Grave Professional Misconduct” 

In a decision dated April 19th, the General Legal Council found attorney Orson “OJ” Elrington of “grave professional misconduct” and in breach of rules 4, 14, and 22, which constitutes grave misconduct.  Elrington is being summoned by the Council to a hearing on May 24th to show cause why any of the sanctions set out in the Legal Profession Act should not be imposed on him. 

Under that particular section, the Council may recommend to the Chief Justice: 

(a) the removal of the attorney’s name from the Roll;

(b) the removal of the attorney from practice on such conditions as the Council may determine;

(c) the imposition on the attorney of such fine as it may think proper;

(d) subjecting the attorney to a reprimand;

(e) the payment by any party of costs or of such sum as the Council may consider a reasonable contribution towards cost;

(f) the payment by the attorney of any such sum by way of restitution as the Council may consider reasonable.

News Five has reached out to Elrington for comment. 

Pastor Dozie brought a complaint against Elrington, alleging that Elrington settled a claim without his consent. Dozie claimed he only signed one engagement letter, while Elrington asserted that two were signed, altering the terms of their agreement.

Dozie provided evidence of his position, including original documents and WhatsApp conversations. Elrington failed to produce original engagement letters despite multiple directives to do so. The Council found discrepancies in Elrington’s testimony and noted concerns regarding his reliance on a paralegal to handle client communication and legal matters.

Ultimately, the Council concluded that Elrington breached professional rules and referred the case to the police for further investigation into the authenticity of the disputed engagement letter. This finding highlighted the seriousness of Elrington’s actions and raised questions about his credibility and conduct as an attorney.

In 2023, Dozie retained Elrington as his attorney to file a claim against the Social Security Board which had denied Dozie’s application for survivor’s grant following the passing of his wife in 2021. SSB told Dozie the Social Security (Benefits) Regulations did not make provision for widowers to claim the survivor’s grant that is payable to a widow on the death of a husband. Elrington commenced action against the SSB and the Attorney General. A percentage of any sums recovered to be paid to Elrington was agreed. The percentage agreed is in dispute. “The dispute arises due to Mr Elrington’s assertion that there was a second engagement letter.” 

Following negotiations, Elrington collected the settlement sum of $46,588. “He continues to possess that said sum, and has not paid any portion any portion thereof to Pastor Dozie.” (This is at the date of the decision) 

In his defence, Elrington claimed that Dozie did not provide him with a bank account to transfer the money.  

In December 2023, Dozie emailed Elrington, demanding all funds received from the SBB, including the initial retainer of $1,500. The sums were not paid to Dozie at the time of this decision. Dozie also confirmed that he did not provide Elrington with banking details. 

Dozie says he did not approve the settlement terms. Elrington told the Council that he orally explained the settlement terms to Dozie in September 2023. 

According to Dozie, he signed one engagement letter on May 17, 2023, where he agreed to pay Elrington a retainer fee of $3,000. It was also agreed that Elrington was to be paid a contingency fee of 15% of the sums collected. Elrington says that Dozie signed a second “redrafted” retainer on the same day. According to Elrington, Dozie paid him $1,500 down and agreed to pay 40% of the sums collected. Dozie said that he paid Elrington $1,500 and the remaining amount would be collected from any funds received. Elrington was unable to provide the Council with the original engagement letters with the wet ink signatures. 

 

“A perusal of the documents by the members of the Council indicates that the scanned copy of the signature of Pastor Dozie on the second engagement letter (denied y Pastor Dozie) is blue, whilst the first one is black, and the signature on the second engagement letter appears to be identical in size and shape, including the points where the signature intersects the alphabetical letters at the bottom of the signature line, that spell out his name. Exactness in two signatures of the same person to such a degree are not usually found and tends more to the probability that the latter signature is a copy made by scanning or copying by machine.”