## Facts

- Lawler, Matusky & Skeller (also spelled “Skelly” in some Barbados sources), a New York engineering firm, contracted with the Government of Barbados to provide consultancy services for a public works project in Bridgetown.
- The agreement stated it was governed by the laws of Barbados and provided for arbitration in Barbados under the Barbados Arbitration Act.
- A dispute arose and arbitration was commenced in Barbados.
- After difficulties in agreeing on an arbitrator, the High Court appointed an arbitrator for the dispute.
- The engineering firm sought to be represented in the arbitration by Mr. Jack S. Kannry, a lawyer admitted in foreign jurisdictions but not admitted as an attorney-at-law in Barbados.
- The opposing party objected that Mr. Kannry’s acting as counsel in the Barbados arbitration would amount to practicing law in Barbados contrary to § 12(1)(a) of the Legal Professions Act.
- The arbitrator reviewed Mr. Kannry’s qualifications and indicated he could appear for the engineering firm in the arbitration, while directing that a Barbados attorney-at-law be engaged to assist (including for any necessary court applications).
- The opposing party asked the Attorney General of Barbados to intervene.
- The Attorney General filed proceedings in the High Court seeking to prevent Mr. Kannry from participating as counsel in the Barbados-seated arbitration, arguing (1) the proposed representation would breach § 12(1)(a), and (2) the arbitrator had no authority to permit conduct prohibited by that statute.

## Issues

1. Whether a foreign-qualified lawyer who is not admitted in Barbados engages in prohibited practice of law under § 12(1)(a) of the Legal Professions Act by representing a party in a Barbados-seated arbitration.
2. Whether an arbitrator may allow a party to be represented by unadmitted foreign counsel in Barbados when such representation conflicts with the Legal Professions Act.
3. Whether the Attorney General may seek High Court relief to restrain conduct in a private arbitration that allegedly violates the Legal Professions Act.

## Decision

- The High Court treated the Legal Professions Act as binding on who may provide legal representation in Barbados, including in arbitral proceedings conducted in Barbados.
- The court held that the arbitrator’s control over arbitral procedure could not authorize a foreign lawyer to act in a manner that the Legal Professions Act forbids.
- The court accepted that “international practice” in arbitration could not displace Barbados statutory limits on who may practice law in Barbados; if the Act excludes such representation, international practice must yield to the law.
- The court granted relief in favor of the Attorney General, preventing Mr. Kannry’s participation as counsel in the arbitration except to the extent permitted by Barbados law.

## Legal Principles

- Mandatory Barbados legislation regulating the legal profession governs representation in proceedings carried on in Barbados, including Barbados-seated arbitrations.
- An arbitral tribunal’s procedural directions cannot confer a right to act as counsel where Barbados law limits legal practice to attorneys-at-law admitted under the Legal Professions Act.
- Party choice of representative in arbitration is subject to the law at the seat when that law restricts who may appear and act as legal counsel in Barbados.
- The Attorney General may invoke the High Court’s jurisdiction to restrain alleged unlawful practice of law even when the conduct arises in the course of a private arbitration.

## Conclusion

Lawler, Matusky & Skeller v. Attorney General of Barbados holds that Barbados’ Legal Professions Act controls who may act as legal counsel in a Barbados-seated arbitration, and an arbitrator cannot permit a foreign, unadmitted lawyer to appear where the statute restricts such representation; international arbitral custom does not override Barbados law in this setting.


Lawler, Matusky & Skeller v. Attorney General of Barbados, Civil Case No. 320 of 1981 (1983)