The unethical behavior of Cllr. Samuel Pearson, to have obtained a Letter of Administration in his own name on May 9, 2022, to administer the intestate Estate of late Mamie Hayford Pearson, without any consent, withdrew US$93,369 and L$6,235,353.41 from salary and personal saving accounts of the estate, had left him with a severe punishment, he would never forget in his life.
For that unethical display as a lawyer, the Supreme Court had suspended Cllr Pearson from the practice of law for six months.
Besides, the high court ordered Pearson to restitute the money he illegally withdrew from both the United Bank of Africa (UBA), and Liberia Bank for Development and Investment (LBDI) of the Intestate Estate of Maime Hayford Pearson.
The high court took these decisions, in support of the Grievance and Ethics Committee recommendation. The recommendation resulted from an intense investigation which found Pearson liable.
Everything came to public view, when Ballah Yargbo, the biological son of the late Maime Hayford Pearson, filed a complaint against Cllr. Pearson before the Supreme Court.
Maime Hayford Pearson died seized of properties, real and personal, including monies she deposited into her accounts maintained at United Bank of Africa (UBA) and Liberia Bank for Development and Investment (LBDI), respectively, during her lifetime, but leaving no will and last testament.
She was remarried to J. Henric Pearson, the uncle to Cllr. Pearson.
In the complaint that broke the camel back, Yargbo said, at some point, he was not satisfied with the manner in which his late mother’s estate, especially, monies deposited in the banks were administered by his step-father-and-surviving spouse of the deceased in concert with Cllr. Samuel Pearson, another nephew.
Yargbo narrated that his complaint was to seek redress for Cllr. Pearson’s role played, while administering the said Intestate Estate, on June 6, 2023. In the complaint, Yargbo alleged that his stepfather, having remarried after the death of mother obtained Letters of Administration from the Monthly & Probate Court for Montserrado County, on May 23, 2023; that on the strength of the Letters of Administration obtained, he was able to unearth Cllr. Pearson, a family lawyer, had earlier obtained another letter of Administration in his own name on May 9, 2022, to administer the Intestate Estate of his deceased mother, Mamie Hayford Pearson, without his consent.
Cllr. Pearson used the said Letters of Administration to withdraw US$45,000 from his late mother’s salary and personal savings account lodged at the United Bank of Africa (UBA), and subsequently on June 23, 2022, instructed the management of the said Bank to close his late mother’s — account, all to his exclusion.
He further alleged that on July 27, 2022, Cllr. Pearson succeeded in having him, Yargbo, and his stepfather sign a Limited Power of Attorney, authorizing him, Cllr. Pearson to access and withdraw money from his late mother’s account housed at the Liberia Bank for Development and Investment (LBD), that Cllr. Pearson, using the Limited Power of Attorney, withdrew an unspecified amount from the LBDI’s accounts of his late mother without disclosure and not until he presented to the management of LBDI his Letters of Administration obtained from the Monthly and Probate Court for Montserrado County to administer the Intestate Estate of his mother, that he discovered that Cllr. Pearson had withdrawn the following amounts: US$48,369.25, L$849,519.91, and L$5,385,833.50 respectively; and that the total of US$93,369 and L$6,235,353.41 were withdrawn from his late mother’s accounts at UBA and LBDI.
However, out of that money, Yargbo alleged that he received US$10,000, and L$1,500,000. But Cllr. Pearson had earlier informed him that his step-father had instructed him, (Pearson) , to give him (Yargbo) and he said, the amounts which were withdrawn from his late mother’s accounts at the LBDI; that this information was never revealed to him until he obtained the Letters of Administration from the Monthly and Probate Court for Montserrado County, to administer his mother’s Intestate Estate.
In counterargument, Cllr Pearson said, the US$10,000 and L$1,500,000, which amounts Yargbo acknowledged receiving; that if for any obvious reason he (Yargbo) had issues to raise, he should have been raised with his father, J. Henric Pearson, whose instructions were being executed.
Cllr. Pearson contended also that all the monies he collected from the deceased accounts were reported to her husband, J. Henric Pearson, upon whose instruction he was acting and had executed an affidavit confirming receipt of the monies withdrawn from the accounts, thereby bringing the matter to finality.
If Yargbo, he said, feels that he has right, he has remedy in the Monthly and Probate Court for Montserrado County, but not through the Grievance and Ethics Committee, because there is no ethical transgression.
However, Cllr. Pearson prayed the Committee to dismiss the complaint as there is no issue of ethical transgression. He also argued that he had a letter of authorization executed by J. Henric Pearson, as surviving husband to the late Mamie Pearson, granting him authority to administer the Intestate Estate of Mamie Hayford Pearson, and to have access to her bank accounts held at UBA and LBDI.
He claimed that letters of administration obtained in his name from the Monthly and Probate Court for Montserrado County, to administer the said Intestate Estate, a limited power of attorney jointly executed by Ballah Yargbo, and J. Henric Pearson, as beneficiaries of the deceased, authorizing him (Pearson), to access the LBDI accounts of the late Mamie Pearson and to collect (withdraw) all monies deposited.
But the Supreme Court rejected Cllr. Pearson’s argument, the late Maime Hayford Pearson, being related to the spouse of the decedent, Cllr. Pearson’s role in obtaining letters of administration in exclusion of the son of the decedent and benefiting from the proceeds of the decedent’s bank accounts, constitutes conflict of interest and undue influence, and “therefore unethical and in violation of Rule 29(3) of the Code for the Moral and Ethical Conduct of Lawyers, (1999), and must be reprimanded.”
Moreover, the Court also notes Cllr. Pearson’s admission that the deceased named both her husband and son as beneficiaries to her accounts thus creating a joint sharing of the proceeds thereof, with which Pearson failed to do so. Instead, he asserts that the surviving spouses had determined the amount of funds to be given the deceased’s son.
Therefore, the court ruled, “the recommendation of the GEC that Counsellor Samuel Pearson be suspended from the practice of law, directly or indirectly, for the period of three (3) months commencing as of the date of this Opinion and to also be made to restitute the monies he wrongly withdrew from the deceased accounts is affirmed with the modification that the suspension is increased to six (6) months.”
