Barrister: Appeal against Suspension for Dishonesty Allowed
A barrister with an unblemished record, qualified and allowed to receive instructions directly from the public, appealed to the High Court against a decision of a disciplinary tribunal of BTAS to suspend him from practice for 6 months for conduct involving dishonesty: Taylor v Bar Standards Board [2025] EWHC 1029 (Admin) McGowan J
The barrister, who practised in chancery and commercial work admitted a charge that he acted without honesty and integrity in that, on 16 August 2022, he knowingly misled his client by falsely stating that the clients case papers were likely to be at his own home address when at that time he knew this to be untrue.
He had been provided with a number of original documents and papers by his lay client. He had concluded, it appears perfectly reasonably, that his client’s position was unarguable. A conference had been arranged in chambers when he explained to the lay client that the case should be not pursued further.
The client asked for the return of the papers and when the appellant barrister went to the pigeonholes in the clerks’ room, the papers were not there. In order to avoid delay and embarrassment he told the client they were likely to be at home and would be returned in due course.
Not until three months later did the barrister tell the client that the papers had not been taken home, could not be found and must have been disposed of in the confidential waste disposal system in chambers. The fee was returned to the client and a full apology was provided.
The panel took its approach from the basic principle as enshrined in Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512 that dishonesty merits disbarment unless there are exceptional circumstances. They found from the combination of all features of the case that disbarment was not necessary and would be disproportionate. But given the barrister’s incomplete insight they felt an appropriate sanction was suspension for 6 months and a requirement to undertake further continuing professional development relating to public access work before re-commencing his practice.
He appealed the sanction imposed on the grounds that it was clearly inappropriate: Salsbury v Law Society [2009] 1 WLR 1286.
The authorities made it very clear that a panel such as the BTAS Disciplinary Tribunal were experts and had experience and expertise in the regulation of barristers. It was not for the court to interfere with its decision on the basis of disagreement. But with all due respect to the panel for its carefully reasoned decision her Ladyship found that the sanction they reached was clearly inappropriate in the circumstances of the case; it was disproportionate.
The panel was correct to start by considering disbarment and then move on to suspension. However, it would then have been appropriate to reflect further and to consider whether all the requirements of the imposition of sanction and the duty to protect public trust and confidence in the profession could not have bene met by the combined effect of the requirement to complete further professional development training and a financial penalty to mark the seriousness of any act of dishonesty by a barrister.
This was not a lie told for personal gain in any real sense. It was not a lie about the case or the proceedings and it was clearly spontaneous, although it was not without real significance nor at the lowest end not simply of dishonest conduct but of misconduct generally.
Accepting the barrister’s admission and recognition of his wrongdoing were important features and should be properly weighed in the balance in his favour. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed against a period of six months suspension and a fine of £25,000 imposed in its place. The requirement to complete further professional development training remained.