Mac sets out legal aid woes

| 22/10/2009

(CNS): As a result of a catalogue of problems surrounding the current legal aid system, the leader of government business said today that the state has a duty to step in and deal with those problems. No audits, lawyers being overpaid, no control of costs in cases, a perception of bias and awards to people who don’t need it were some of the problems he said were plaguing the current system. McKeeva Bush said government was obliged to determine whether the current situation was in the best interest of the country, and because of the shortcomings, government had decided to change the policy to pave the way for a legal aid office.

Following the LoGB’s first announcement regarding a legal aid office as Finance Committee was drawing to a close late last Monday evening (12 October), a number of questions about how it will work have been raised. Speaking in the Legislative Assembly on Wednesday morning, Bush noted the benefits that he expected from what he described as the McField-Pitcairn plan. But he bemoaned the criticisms that have been levelled against the idea, which he said were common in Cayman when it came to change.

He said government had concerns over the current situation, not just in terms of the excessive and rising cost of legal aid, but the many shortcomings of the system, which he said justified government’s policy change. Bush stated that he understood that no proper legal aid audits have ever been prepared, which if true was preposterous, he said.

“Such an audit is important as it would set out the information that would enable any relevant body to conduct a proper assessment in light of the complaints levied against the system,” he said.

An audit, he said, would have enabled a review of all legal aid cases and applications that were refused, as well as an independent assessment of the quality of service and the amount spent on criminal and civil matters. It would have provided the names of lawyers and firms who provide legal aid and their level of dependence on the system. Bush also said that. had an audit been done, it  would have told government how much was spent on QCs and other visiting counsel along with the number of unpaid accounts and other outstanding matters — hence its importance.

Concerns that some law firms were dependent entirely on legal aid for the existence of their practice had also contributed to the decision, Bush said. “This perception suggests that government sustains these firms and without government funding they would be bankrupt.” He indicated that this not appropriate and noted one lawyer alone had billed government for $146,042 of legal aid work for the 2008/09 year. Bush also stated that the current system of billing allowed lawyers to be paid up to $6,000 while producing $3,000 in value as they are paid by the hour and there was no maximum cost placed on a legal aid cases.   

Problems in enforcing contributions from legal applicants, measuring their real need and eligibility were also noted, as well as a suggestion that people believed legal aid was being given to those who do not need it. Bush also raised concerns about how decisions were made over who receives the benefit and who does not. “There is a perception of bias as legal aid is currently granted by the judges,” the LoGB added.

Bush told the House that the new office would offer legal aid to a far broader cross section of the community for more things, subject to their ability to pay and certain maximum expenditures. Costs would be kept down, he said, as lawyers will be salaried instead of being paid by the hour or appearance. Pre-trial advice would be available, better access to lawyers, perceptions of favouritism by judges would be removed, family law matters would be mediated before getting to court, and funding would be spread where it was needed most, the LoGB promised.

He claimed the office would cap spending but still offer access to legal advice and support. “Legal aid recipients will be treated more like clients rather than wards of the state,” Bush said, adding that the office would change the perception that legal aid was only for those who had committed heinous crimes, but that it would offer access to legal support for everyone who needs it but cannot pay.

Lauding it as a panacea for almost all of the legal aid ills, he said the new office would also provide a training ground for Caymanian lawyers of the future.

The LoGB said that the $300,000 left with the CJ should be enough to cover the transition period as the office would be opened by the end of the year.  Despite the criticisms, Bush said the McField-Pitcairn plan would reduce the spiralling and runaway legal aid costs to the government and was not only timely but prudent and well thought out. Criticising what had gone before, he said this new office would solve the problems that had long been mounting but that no one else from the legal fraternity had been prepared to address.

“The plan is designed to meet the needs of a broader area of the poor and needy and removes the perception that there is no transparency and accountability in the way legal aid is dispensed,” Bush stated. “The plan will end the historical regime of open ended legal aid funding, capping the amount of legal funds, making the delivery of legal aid services independent of the courts and dependent on a structured Legal Services Office rendering high quality legal aid service to the many rather than to the few.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Headline News

About the Author ()

Comments (45)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Please forgive me, but I told you so. I predicted long ago that McKeeva would cause one-sided accusations to be entered into historical fact. Now that he has, I’d like to express mythoughts on the matter. The nub of what I intend to say here is that there is no doubt that he will abandon the idea of universal principles and focus illegitimately on the particular faster than you can say "phytopaleontological". Believe me, I would give everything I own to be wrong on that point, but the truth is that I undeniably hope that the truth will prevail and that justice will be served before he does any real damage. Or is it already too late? You know the answer, don’t you? You probably also know that McKeeva’s method (or school, or ideology—it is hard to know exactly what to call it) goes by the name of "McKeeva-ism". It is a parasitic and avowedly bilious philosophy that aims to paralyze any serious or firm decision and thereby become responsible for the weak and half-hearted execution of even the most necessary measures. In closing, I consider this letter to be required reading for everyone who still cares that one can only speculate how much worse things would be if Mr. Bush were to level filth and slime at everyone opposed to his taradiddles.  Thank you.

  2. Polly Glot says:

    MacDinejad, MacMissick, MacChavez.  So many names.  Which dowe use? 

    I have no experience of air traffic control.  But I know it costs money.  I have been on a plane a few times.  Why not cut the money in half, divert that half to me and I will set up an air traffic control company. 

    Just doing my bit for the nation building "church" fund.  Just doing my bit.  Call it the Polly Plane Plan.

  3. Anonymous says:

    I hope that the Mcfeild/Pitcarin legal aid becomes a big success…and because they both have a big heart for ALL people regardless of nationalities it will be!!!. 


  4. Anonymous says:

    Ignorance is a hell of a thing!

    • Anonymous says:

      Does all this remind anyone else of McChevez? Just wondering (& very worried).

    • Anonymous says:

      We all should just shut up, WE DESERVE EVERYTHING WE GET, we deserve whatever mac does to us & this country. If we can’t learn, we must feel!

  5. Pastor Alan Hole says:

    The money being given to the churches will be used for legal aid. The churches and the CMA shall decide who does or does not qualify for legal aid. Like it or not, these are the new ways under the powerful master McMissick. Deal with it.

    • A Concerned Caymanian says:

      Thank God!!!!! They needed to do something!!!! I hope they do something about the Scholarships been given to the ones that can afford it. and the Children that really need them!!!!! Being stopped from getting it!!!!



      • Makam says:

        All children of parents who voted UDP must get a scholarship! That is only fair 🙂

        • Anonymous says:

          That is utterly ridiculous. UDP supporters and their children must be given Honorary Degrees from ICCI that they can list on the resume just like McDinejad and get any job they desire.

  6. Anonymous says:

    This is another step in the wrong direction! This is poorly thought out, not reserached and will have serious implications for these islands on an INTERNATIONALscale. We have signed treatys. We have laws, these plans circumvent all of it and opens up these islands to more expense from this perspective alone. This does not include the REAL COSTS that such an office will attract.

    • Anonymous says:

      I agree, there seems to have been no consultation with anyone (oh yes, a clerk), & this is very troublesome. Things do not look good my fellow Caymanians. !959 just north of us ALL OVER AGAIN!

  7. J says:

    Sometime ago, I got divorce after finding out that my wife was cheating on me with her boss. She also portrayed me to him as an abuser, and of course, this ruin my reputation as a good citizen of these Islands. This was all for position and money. I still recall the saying, "the way to hell is paved with good intentions," but as a man who admits he was full of "self" and ego, how could I bear the thought that my wife was cheating on me and playing me for a fool. The court gave us joint-custody of our 4 year old daughter under the condition that she regularly lives with her mother, and she lives with me from time to time. We were both to agree how my visitations were to be set up. But this did not work after several months.

    When she learnt that I was moving on with my life and seeing someone else, my Ex became difficult in that she refusedme from seeing my daughter. I recall how I was so passive and respectful towards her, went to her door to see my daughter, and there was no answer. She would neither answer our phone. I tried demanding and just going there and taking her away, but this caused emotional distress on my daughter. So what could I do?  Here is where you see how the British system here is set in favor of the rights of women more over men: I went to seek legal advice on how I could get the court to order changed to explicitly state when I could see my daughter. I learnt I needed a lawyer. The case would cost me money. I fact is, I didn’t had the money to go to court. The salary I made was nothing… it was enough to only feed me!  And then my Ex was still being supported by her "boss" who bought her a car and was willing to pay for her court expenses. Who was I, making nothing, under a disfunctional English Law to take her and her "boss" to court. 

    I tried to get legal aid through going to social services, because I learnt that they could request legal aid on behalf of individuals who could not afford. So I saw a social worker in order to sort out our scheduling of when I could see my daughter. She visited my Ex. My Ex again told a "sad story" to her, portraying my character in a negative light. Consequently, the worker called me and told me that they could not give me any support of legal aid, because it would disrupt my daughter’s stable life that she had now with her mother. 

    I am just sick of our justice system!  Money is needed for everything!  You have to buy justice in order to get it. To this day, I can’t see my daughter, because I have no money, and there is no support from a broken system thatsides more on the woman’s side. That is why I believe some men commit these domestic crimes and go to Northward. Even our society supports the laws leanings on a women over men. Look at the Women’s Resource Center for example! It should have been called the Family’s Resource Center, but it was called "Womens" because it reflects legal attitude towards men! So to this day, no matter how much the preach about "Estella" I can’t support them and give them donations, because apparently by their very name, they don’t represent the home. 

    lol… I laugh… now they are talking about fixing our Legal Aid system!

    We will see,


    • Judy Singh says:

       Dear J,

      It’s true that the system is likely to favour a woman over a man when it comes to claims of domestic abuse, and I was with you in your plea for justice — right up until you said "That is why I believe some men commit these domestic crimes and go to Northward."

      I’m sorry, but it’s attitudes like this that make men feel justified in battering women.  There is a "Women’s" Resource Centre because 9 times out of ten cases of domestic violence, the woman is the victim.  Women are generally physically weaker than men and quite often are also mentally conditioned to accept abuse (and this conditioning begins in childhood) so I’m sorry if you feel threatened by there being a centre to accommodate women specifically but you have to look at the bigger picture.  Having a "Family" centre is indeed an excellent idea and a fair argument but there also needs to be a safe place where women can go and seek help from abusive and often intimidating men/spouses.

      If I were you, I’d go back to legal aid and insist on a fair trial.  Tell them she’s lying and that you deserve a chance to say your side.  But please don’t use your story as justification for men to abuse women, nor as an excuse to reject the movement Estella’s death represents — and her name need not be in quotation marks — she was a real person who fought this fight in Cayman long before anyone else would.  She’s not a theory or an ideal, she is a reminder of the gaping holes left in a society that condones or ignores domestic abuse.

      • Anonymous says:



        You said, "there also needs to be a safe place where women can go and seek help from abusive and often intimidating men/spouses."

        So… Why not a place named, "Family Resource Center"

        You still insist on singling out women.

        I don’t think your advice helps J at all

        • Judy Singh says:

          I agree that a family resource centre is an excellent idea when perhaps the abuse in question is not so extreme.  I’m only suggesting that a women who has lived in fear of a man who has been beating and/or raping her for several years and is finally making a decision to leave, might need a haven that is "man free".  

          Of course men are victims of verbal abuse and yes, there are women out there who have razor tongues that lash out in absolutely unacceptable ways, but I do not EVER think that ANY verbal abuse warrants a beating. Call me crazy, but I thought we were trying to move away from violence in our community.  To say it’s ok for a man to beat a woman when she calls him really bad names is condoning violence no matter how you slice it.

          And I would also add that I think most people are aware that Estella was not a victim of domestic violence, but the protection of women and children was her life’swork for a long time and so we associate this ongoing struggle in our community with her.  She was frustrated by the lack of legislation and and the complacency in our community towards domestic violence and really, not much has changed.  I did some work with the Sexual Harassment and Stalking Task force over 2 years ago and their recommendations for legislation were submitted to government almost a year ago now and STILL it is not illegal to stalk and sexually harass a man or woman in our community.  This sends out the message that it’s ok for us to impose ourselves on others in generally inappropriate ways.

          This isn’t about men and women – it’s about moving towards NON VIOLENCE in our community – for both men and women.

      • Candy says:

        From Estella’s friend:

        I recall one time how faithful members of this same Women’s Resource Center, started proclaiming over the airwaves, that Estella was a victim of a Domestic Violence, and they started to used her death as an advantage for targeting and "enlarging" the issue of men-abusers. Nothing wrong for speaking out against abuse on women.

        But as a woman, I can say, it is premature for other women to assume something or make accusations about something without any evidence. I live in a large family and I personally know men who were abused vebally by their wives, and thus provoke to anger. A man is different from a woman and expresses himself more on a physical-plane than a woman would express herself. Women are rarely provoked to physical violence. The number of women in prison compared to men, would tell you this. Yet because women cannot use strong arms like men to inflict pain, the ignorant ones have cleverly used their tongues to do it. I have this to say ladies, mental abuse by "childish women" has killed and is killing now the "manliness" and leadership abilities in men, especially, boys, which this society appears to be lacking now. I can go on and on about verbal abuse and its dangers…

        Estella Scotts case turned out to be a crime of opportunity rather than a Domestic Abuse situation, and it made those same women over the airwaves, at that time, look like those who "condemn the witches of salem."

        All I am saying is – Ladies… please let us consider everyone on the same "boat" when it comes to Domestic Abuse. There is more than one kind of domestic abuse, and there is more than one kind of victim!  Yes, more women are abused by men than men abused by women, but is that really so???  I can say, verbal abuse by women on children and men, have went for years undetected or "not mentioned" in our Cayman society. It is the "silent abuse," the women advocates and some, yes, "haters of men" have buried and fail to highlight in the media.  

        And please "you ladies"…stop using Estella’s death as an example of a Domestic Abuse situation. That brings dishonor to our dearest friend and the mode of death she tragically experienced.

    • thanks J says:

      I feel for you J, I am in a similar situation but I was lucky to have a child that stood up to her abusive and selfish mother (who also had several affairs during our marriage) and told her she was going to see her father regardless. Her mother now realises that she cannot keep us apart, but suppose my child was not so brave? Who out there would fight for the fathers rights. There are a lot of mature cooperative women who will do what is best for the child, but trust me, there are far more vindictive and spiteful women who will use the child to keep getting that support money although they dont spend $1 of it on the child. In fact their "wonderful" new men who are reaping the benefits of your hard work and assets lost in the divorce are benefiting more than the children. We got some lovely women in oru society, but we also got some real "bags", and the law unfortunately favours them !


      • Anonymous says:

        I was in the same situation, lucky I had inherited property (thank God no property tax) that I was able to use as collateral to secure a loan to pay legal fees. In spite of a difficult time batteling the Cayman womans mafia I won time with my child. I’ll be paying the loan for another 5 years but it is worth every cent.

  8. Anonymous says:

    "Bush noted the benefits that he expected from what he described as the McField-Pitcairn plan".

    Did anyone notice how he subtly suggested that any blame should be attributed to McField and Pitcairn? When will these guys ever learn.

    • Dick Shaughneary says:

      So now it was a plan devised by two underemployed attorneys to give themselves a job by obtaining a practical monopoly of defence work?

      • Dwindling Hope says:

        Finally, someone who see’s this fiasco for what it is  – well said!!!

  9. Anonymous says:

    Desperate last-minute attempts by Mr Bush to meet the torrent of criticism that has poured forth since this new policy was announced, methinks?

    If Mr Bush had really thought any of this through (instead of going along with some half-baked, backstairs, jobs-for-the-boys plan), why could not there have been proper consultation with all stakeholders (AG, CJ, Bar Association), and what (because this question hasn’t been answered by Mr Bush yet) justification is there for completely ignoring the conclusions of the LawReform Commission Report into the provision of legal aid? Do we think the authors of the report simply dreamt it up overnight like this new policy? Or do we think it was the result of months of consideration, of consultation with those who work in this field, and a broad review of what is done in other jurisdictions?

    If there had been such consultation, and if the report had actually been read by Mr Bush and those behind the scenes who put this plan forward, then we would not be facing the wholesale collapse of the provision of good quality legally-aided legal services.

    Mark my words, give this new policy time to take effect and you will see:

    1. No savings in the annual cost of legal aid, if the same amount of cases are brought before the courts and covered by legal aid as before, and in all likelihood an increase in costs.

    2. A rapid decline in the quality and standard of litigation in the courts, and a consequent increase in the number of appeals and in the costs of those appeals.

    3. A flight from legal aid work by well-qualified lawyers, who are independent of the state, instead for the work to be taken up by under-qualified, salaried state employees who will lack the ability or integrity (who may just think, ‘I’m not going to take that controversial point that might help my client because it might put my job/promotion/pay rise at risk’) to work very hard. sad but true.

    Good luck Cayman.

    • Anonymous says:

      100% on point! I wish others thought the way you did.

    • Anonymous says:

      From the XXXXXX:

      The people of the Cayman Islands should be aware that such a proposal is entirely contrary to the advice of the Government’s own legal advisory body, the Law Reform Commission. In 2007 that Commission was directed by the Government to conduct a substantive review of the legal aid system in the Cayman Islands. After significant and exhaustive consultation, in July 2008 the Law reform Commission reported back to Government that:

      While the Commission agreed that the containment of excessive legal aid costs is in the public interest the Commission considered that the present system of provision of legal aid services by the private bar in general offers goodvalue for money “

      A public defenders scheme would involve significant expense, going beyond just the salaries of the lawyers, to include secretaries and paralegals expenses which the private practitioners must currently assume as part of their own costs of doing business. The current legal aid system, the judicare model, provides a high calibre of service and is far less expensive ultimately than a public defender’s scheme.”

      A Legal Aid clinic would not be appropriate to provide defence in criminal cases


      Doesn’t this say it all?

      CNS: We don’t mind crediting other news organisations but not for something that was on CNS five days before it was published by the newspaper referred to. See Legal Aid

    • what a mess! says:

      Well Said!

      This latest Macdinijad move is proposterous!

      He speaks of no audits being done…but provides no study or even open consultation to justify this. He suggests bias by to Judiciary on who recieves leal aid and seems to imply that somehow "he" (through his creation of his Legal Aid Clinic) will be less biased? Yeah…right!

      Very sneaky Mac…"not only must justice be done, it must appear to be done". When are you going to learn this?

      Please HRC, UK FCO, Cayman people….don’t allow this madness.

  10. Anonymous says:

    The separation of powers (legislative, judiciary and executive)  or trias politica is essential to the governance of any democracy. 

    The fundamental problem with Mac’s McField/Pitcairn scheme is that it effectively fuses the judiciary with the executive.  The result of this fusion is that the executive (ie. McField/Pitcair as political appointees) would effectively usurp the role of the judiciary by being given the authority to judge and to serve justice (or injustice) to those in need of legal aid. This is an extremely dangerous policy direction that gives rise to the potential for injustice locally, and would also undermine the international reputation of independence of the judiciary in the Cayman Islands.

    Separation of powers MUST be maintained and any concerns with the current legal aid system should be  dealt with by the judiciary.  It may be useful to emulate the UK model where the legal aid scheme is run by the Legal Services Commission and is overseen by the Ministry of Justice with a budget that is set by the Treasury.


  11. anonymous says:

    Mr. McField always thought that the Layers doing Legal Aid were making a killing at $130 per hour- not sure this will not catch some of our smaller lawyers like Samson, etc….they are probably happy to get onto to some real billing now.


    I have no problem with the Legal Aid office going Political but the problem I have is the math…


    6 lawyers on salary…$400-500,000 per year min 


    6 legal Students…$150,000 per year ( maybe these are indentured and no cost, does not really matter)


    1 QC…$130-150,000 per year


    (Specialist lawyer for cases where no expertise is on staff( this will occur)…$70,000 per year)


    Legal secretaries( 2-1/2)…..$140,000 per year


    Office set up/Furniture/Law library…$250-400,000 (one time cost)


    Rent for approximately 5 – 6,000 sq ft…..$150,000 per year


    Utilities/office supplies/ telephone/etc….$120,000 per year


    Professional Insurances/etc….$40,000 per annum (Govt could self insure but then liability carried by the people)


    Management/Accounting/"Means testing" costs…$ 100-140,000 per year ( presumedly Mr. McField/Ms Pitcain, part time each, plus others)


    This seems to be in region of $2M in first year and a minimum running cost of more than $1.5M per year.  I confident that this office will cost in this area to operate so I do not see the savings noted by the McField-Pitcain Plan. Can someone enlighten me please?


  12. Anonymous says:

    The signs of a banana-republic dictatorship keep jumping up!!

    Mac unilateral declarations – without consultation of anyone else – wreck havoc all round.

    (1) He grossly and recklessly claims that we were bankrupt (2) unilaterally changes Pirates Week at church meeting

    (3) unilaterally declares a pension holiday (then Rollie had to do more back pedalling and damage control)

    (4) picks an unnecessary fight with FCO for permission to borrow our way out of debt, only to prepare a budget with increased fees anyway (same as most governments did)

    (5) terrifies us and the world that there would be no money to pay civil servants salaries in Sep 09; nonetheless, announces a 2% civil servants pay cut — backtracks and acts confused by the publics concern afterwards

    (7) increases business and work permit fees to obscene levels in a ridiculous budget then shouts down the already timid "Opposition" -haha- which "abstains" from approving budget

    (8) unilaterally reallocates funds to a private slush fund for churches and other vague purposes and shouts down any questions and rams it thru house

    (9) unilaterally appoints head of UCCI – board just got around yesterday to formalizing same for appearances sake because Mac had already declared publicly the winner

    (10) now, he unilaterally sets up a legal aid clinic for two loyal udp supporters that are otherwise unable to get a job – without any consultation from anyone (other than the two clowns that are pushing to get to run the new legal aid clinic)

    Cayman looks so unstable to rest of the world – judges being arrested, removed, corrupt police force, bankrupt and politically unstable and undemocratic.


  13. Anonymous says:

    Can somebody or anybody just put themselves in McKeeva Bush’s position for a minute? His primary qualification is not some Harvard degree or Ivy League membership, but most importantly, he is a Caymanian.

    He was born here, he has always lived here and he is by democratic election, the Leader Of Government Business.

    How many of us would want that position, especially based on all the vitriolic, anonymous comments that we read against him every day? This man will have to grow a thick skin to surf this web site.

    McKeeva Bush is not the enemy. He is a Caymanian and all Caymanians must come together and demand transparency from one another. The party system has polarized you, so that you can be conquered.

    Indeed, the day of your downfall is not far away. Soon the FCO will announce that you are incapable of governing youirselves and they will instill a Governor with an iron fist and you will pray for the days of McKeeva Bush.

    It may be too late. I wish I were a Caymanian, but I am not that blessed. I hope you all realize how blessed you are.

    • Anonymous says:

      why do we need to? he signed up for the job – taking criticism is part of it.

      And that FCO declaration that you speak of, will come alot faster BECAUSE of mckeevas heavy handed dictatorship.

      I born n bred ya, too!


    • Anonymous says:

      Apparently we must follow all his decisions because he is a Caymanian without question.  That was the problem in the Turks!  We need to promote healthy debate and opposition as it is integral to the democratic model.

    • Anonymous says:

      Give us a break  post (23:24). Its people like you why we still have this fool in power. He will never solve our problems and his only interest is  gaining power and money which has cost our country dearly. So please crawl back in whatever hole you have been living in. Most people would prefer a leader  with a Harvard degree to run this country. Not a jack a**. If he cant stand the comments that are being said about him, then he should not be in politics. He has said enough about people, so whatever you sow is what you reap!


      He maybe a Caymanian just like me, but his heart is with the expats (investors) not the Caymanians. Thats how he makes all this money. He only uses simple Caymanians for their votes that believes in him. He can buy them off with a dryer or washer. The smart ones can see right through his disastrous leadership.

    • not that blessed says:

      His primary qualification is he is a Caymanian. Yes he is Caymanian to the bone. He has no Harvard degree or Ivy league membership. How blessed you all must be! And of course because he is Caymanian he can do no wrong. Thank the lord.  Now if you could just get rid of all the other kind of people what a great place Cayman would be for Caymanians.  Soon come.


    • Concerned says:

      You must be joking? This country is like a sinking ship, in serious trouble and you think the most important thing is that our "Captain" is a Caymanian?

      People are speaking out because they are concerned about the country THAT WE ALL LIVE IN! This has nothing to do with Nationality. I strongly suggest you learn about the issues, maybe that will change your tune and bring you into reality.

    • Happy and unblessed says:

      Good thing he is CAYMANIAN!!! Otherwise he would look like a great fool leading the foolish.

  14. Anonymous says:

    If mac really thought this was the best way to reform legal aid system, why the clandestine last-minute reallocation, without consultation from the CJ, AG, Law Society, Bar Association, HRC, Crime Bar Association — someone, ANYONE??

    Another example of terrible PR and illconceived ideas that he is too arrogant to admit he got wrong so he forces ahead!


  15. Anonymous says:

    I cant figure out whether Mac has completely lost the plot himself or is just listening to the bad advice from people that couldnt otherwise get a job.

    Bad bad move all round

    macjinedad better be careful listening to bad advice, otherwise he will end up the way of the Kurt Tibbetts – silently stupid.

  16. Anonymous says:

    We are lucky indeed to have such a brilliant man to lead us. First he singlehanded saves us from economic ruin within a matter of weeks, and now we see his razor sharp legal mind at work.


    "perceptions of favouritism by judges would be removed"


    That is certainly welcome to anyone who has ever had a judge rule against them in a case. Never mind that the judges are already paid so there additional salaries to be paid to them when aid is being distributed.

    Under the McField-Pitcairn Plan we will have four eyes instead of the usual two, and the textbooks have already told us that justice is blind. When they get fourteen additional eyes (or is that ayes?) added to the team I would expect then to be pulling in a Bridgeresque salaries. Somewhat less than a "real" lawyer in Cayman, but comfortable none the less. Of course as a private entity they don’t have to tell us what their salaries are.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Mr. Bush needs to brush up his basic math skills. 

    If they need 1.8k for a 12 month financial year then the expected spend for a quarter (which has already passed) would be at least 450,000. So how is 300,000 going to cover until the new office is implemented in the second quarter? That amount would already be spent now! 

    If this is how he is setting up the new legal aid programme then he better explain plan B, C, & D because this is not going to work.

    Without proper research and development you spend much more on damage repairs then you would if you did it right. 

    Note: i am for a legal aid office, but i want something done right, not done in a typical half-hazard government style.

    • Anonymous says:

      That would be haphazard not a half-hazard which is not a complete hazard and then you would have government-style.

  18. Anonymous says:

    McKeeva Bush, a statesman with a "vision and a plan to move us forward"

    Better than we can say about others whom over the past years had the ball in their court and did absolutely nothing, only put us deep in debt and created the mess we’re in now !!!! 

    • Anonymous says:

      Now listen ya, you nearly make me joke on my coffee! You got to be joking right?!

    • Concerned says:

      Did nothing? They were the ones who undertook the Legal Aid Commission in 2007 to ascertain the deficiencies that needed to be addressed in Legal Aid! Get the facts- ignorance begets ignorance.

      and now the head honcho has chosen to ignore the recommendation. More good advice down the drain

    • Anonymous says:

      McKeeva Bush a statesman. And what a state he has us in.