IN RE: THE REPORT OF THE GRIEVANCE AND ETHICS COMMITTEE OF THE LIBERIAN NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION ON THE COMPLAINT OF ESTHER LUKE COOPER-DANIELS AGAINST COUNSELLOR CHRISTIAN D. MAXWELL OF THE MAXWELL & MAXWELL LAW OFFICE.

Heard December 16, 1985. Decided December 19, 1985.

1. A lawyer, as the first judge to whom a client carries a case, should in all honesty advise his client, upon observation and as the need arises, that he/she does not have a good case.
2. The professional responsibility of a lawyer must not be attacked without sufficient grounds.
3. The ends of justice are speedily obtained when parties in litigation and their lawyers are fair enough in recognizing the weakness of the foundation on which their claims are based and the inconsistency of their contention against a claim founded on justice, equity and trust.

The complainant Esther Luke Cooper-Daniels, filed a complaint with the Chief Justice against Counsellor Christian D. Maxwell of the Maxwell & Maxwell Law Office, complaining that Counsellor Maxwell had engaged in unprofessional conduct, that he had engaged in bribery, and that he had employed delay tactics to deprive her of speedy and adequate hearing of her case. However, when the matter was submitted to the Grievance and Ethics Committee for hearing, the complainant, in a subsequent letter to the Chief Justice, retracted her original letter of com-plaint, noting that the information given by her in her earlier letter with regard to Counsellor Maxwell may have been misleading, that she had no case or evidence to substantiate her original allegations against him, and that she was sorry for having provided the Chief Justice with inaccurate information.

Given the admissions in the subsequent letter, the Grievance and Ethics Committee recommended to the Supreme Court that the charges levied against Counsellor Maxwell be dismissed.
The Supreme Court, upon receipt of the report of the Grievance and Ethics Committee, dismissed the complaint and warned the complainant against levying untrue accusations against lawyers which could damage their reputation.

No appearances noted for the parties.

MR. JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

On May 26, 1983, Esther Luke Cooper-Daniels, appellant in several cases pending before the Supreme Court on appeal, and assigned for the hearing of arguments, addressed a letter to the Chief Justice complaining against Counsellor Christian D. Maxwell of the Maxwell & Maxwell Law Offices, who was counsel for the appellees in the said cases, for alleged unethical and unprofessional conduct. Here is the text of Mrs. Daniels’ letter, which we quote for the benefit of this opinion, as follows:

“. . . I have found out that Mr. Christian Maxwell is not professionally a lawyer; he employs competent lawyers to handle all his cases and goes along bribing where he is accepted in doing so. This is a known fact which has resulted in his many successes against less unfortunate persons who cannot cope along with him financially. He has really forgotten being all wrapped up with clients who give him all the support spending heavy sums of money to be right, when he is wrong, that the great Almighty God lives, and puts and sooner or later with great surprise for all. For these acts, such money received vanishes very rapidly and those get in a worse condition in life and then blame their predicament to superstitious means by an enemy. Many times our enemies are innocent. I say this to inform you that Mr. Maxwell wants to travel to inject his delay tactics in our case before your Honourable body. Please do not let this happen. You do not have to inform him in detail; just warn him that you do wish all parties are present for the next assignment.”

What created concern was when Mrs. Daniels wrote in her letter of complaint, among other things, that:

“ . . . For these acts, such money received vanishes very rapidly and those get in a worse condition in life and then blame their predicament on superstitious means by an enemy. Many times our enemies are innocent. I say this to inform you that Mr. Maxwell wants to travel to inject his delay tactics in our case before your Honourable body. Please do not let this happen . . . .”
Attaching seriousness and concern to this complaint of Mrs. Daniels, the Chief Justice forwarded same to the Grievance and Ethics Committee of the Liberian National Bar Association for investigation, with instruction to the Committee to submit its findings and recommendations. Three days after the first letter of complaint had been forwarded to the Committee, Mrs. Daniels, on May 29, 1985, addressed another letter to the Chief Justice, retracting her former letter of May 26, 1985, and claiming that the information given in her former letter could have been misleading. She claimed that she was in a mood of con-fusion and uncertainty, and that she was therefore a fit subject for being influenced by rumor mongering. She craved that she be forgiven and prayed for acceptance of her apology. This second letter was also forwarded to the Committee by the Chief Justice for its information.
The Committee, according to its report, assigned the matter and met for the investigation at which the complainant, Esther Luke Cooper-Daniels, appeared along with her counsel, Attorney Stubblefield. At the hearing, Mrs. Daniels reaffirmed her latter letter, retracting her earlier letter of complaint. Attorney Stubble-field, speaking to the Committee in the presence of his client, said that out of passion and in the outburst of emotion his client had written to the Chief Justice of Liberia, acquainting him with information gathered on the respondent counsellor that were merely hearsay. That passion, he said, was heightened when his client learned that the respondent was about to depart Liberia, which act would have delayed her case.
The Committee in its findings concluded as follows:

“Unfortunately we are incapacitated to go into the merits of the case because, and as we have said before, the complainant has found her complaint un-meritorious, has expressed her regrets, and tendered her apologies. We are further incapacitated by the fact that the respondent has filed only a general denial of the facts, and did not raise any traversable issue that we could have gone upon, both in his observation and at the hearings.

Wherefore, and in view of the foregoing, it is our findings that the matter be, and the same is hereby dropped; that the complainant be warned in a public manner not to attack the professional reputation of a lawyer without sufficient grounds. And also that all lawyers be advised that they should treat this Committee’s requests for their observation with greater concern.”
Whilst this Court would appreciate complaints from any source against any of our judges whose judicial determinations are influenced by reward or hope of reward, or against any of the lawyers who engage in bribery as a means of winning cases in court, so as to enable us to take appropriate disciplinary measures, we deprecate and condemn the act of Mrs. Daniels and seriously warn her and any other person or persons against character assassination, which now-a-days has become prevalent in our society. A lawyer, as the first judge to whom his client carries a case, should in all honesty advise his such client not to go to court if he observes that his client does not have a good case to take to court and win. Equally, a client should be fair enough to accept the legal advice of his or her lawyer, rather than go to court with a bad case and thereafter resort to character assassination after for losing the case. The ends of justice can be speedily obtained when parties in litigation and their lawyers are fair in recognizing the weakness of the foundation on which their claims are based and the inconsistency of their contentions against a claim founded on justice, equity and trust. Mrs. Daniels had no cause or reason to believe that Counsellor Maxwell would bribe the Supreme Court to give rise to the letter addressed to the Chief Justice.

In view of the findings and recommendation of the Committee, Mrs. Daniels is hereby seriously warned against a repetition of this act. The matter is considered dropped. And it is hereby so ordered.
Complaint withdrawn; matter dropped.