Barrister’s Failure to Comply with Court Order

A barrister who was subject to findings of misconduct after failing to comply with a court order ordering him to pay the sum of £54,595.39 plus £9,416.50 in costs to Claimant H by 5 November 2015, appealed to the High Court against a Disciplinary Tribunal sanction of six months’ suspension: Ahmad v Bar Standards Board [2024] EWHC 3248 (Admin)  Lang J

By the date of the Tribunal hearing on 4 April 2024 the barrister had paid H around £42,500. Interest at the judgment rate (8%) was payable for 6 years on both the principal sum and the order for costs.

The Tribunal’s conclusions were that throughout the entire period the barrister’s stance had been that of an aggrieved judgment debtor. He felt that the order should never have been made against him, that he did not have a fair hearing and that his appeals were dismissed without fair and proper consideration. That was not something which concerned the Tribunal.

Although the failure to comply with the court order did not arise out of the barrister’s professional duty as a barrister, it nevertheless arose in a professional capacity in that he was the employer of the claimant. It was clear from the barrister’s letter of 5 January 2022 to the BSB that he was of the opinion that once the judgment was more than six years old it could not be enforced.

In relation to seriousness, the Tribunal’s conclusions were that each of the charges fell between the upper and middle range of seriousness. There were limited attempts to comply with the order which began in correspondence in 2022 but did not materialise in terms of payments until May 2023. There was no good reason why the barrister failed to comply with the order.

The barrister’s behaviour over many years including his inability or reluctance to engage in a timely way with the litigation demonstrated a lack of insight into the impact on the judgment creditor of his failure to comply.

Nowhere in the barrister’s written submissions could the Tribunal find any expression of remorse, genuine or otherwise. Far from it. The barrister still maintained that the successful claimant was disreputable and ultimately dishonest.

The majority view of the Panel was that the barrister’s conduct amounted to significant culpability; the minority view was that it amounted to moderate culpability. Bearing in mind that public confidence in the legal profession would be undermined as a consequence of a member of the legal profession being able to spin out proceedings over a number of years to the detriment of a judgment creditor but that the barrister had paid some money towards the debt and appeared to be continuing to make attempts to pay, the overall conclusion by a majority was that this amounted to moderate harm. Therefore, the panel’s conclusion was that the professional misconduct straddled the upper and middle ranges of seriousness.

In Her Ladyship’s judgment the Tribunal’s application of the Sanctions Guidance did not disclose any errors and could not be characterised as wrong or clearly inappropriate. The conclusions reached were well within the reasonable range of evaluative judgments open to a specialist Tribunal. Furthermore, it clearly took into account the payments made towards the debt.

The Tribunal was also entitled to conclude that the barrister had not expressed genuine remorse for his conduct because he did not accept he was at fault or liable to pay the judgment sum. It was also entitled to be concerned about the reliability of the barrister’s evidence about his income and outgoings. The Tribunal was justified on the evidence in finding that the barrister was prioritising other expenditure over the payment of the judgment debt.

In the court’s view the Tribunal must have been well aware that the suspension would be likely to operate harshly as it would deprive the barrister of his livelihood and his income for six months, but it was also entitled to take the view that suspension as required to maintain public confidence and trust in the profession and to maintain high standards in the profession.

The appeal against sanction was dismissed together with an award of costs in the sum of £1,200.

Cases Cited in Judgment

Review not Rehearing

E I Dupont de Nemours & Co v S T Dupont [2003] EWCA Civ 1368, [2006] 1 WLR 2793

Todd v Adams and Chope (trading as Trelawney Fishing Co) [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 97

Suspension and Striking Off

Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512

Law Society v Salsbury [2008] EWCA Civ 1285

Hewson v BSB [2021] EWHC 28 (Admin)

Bawa-Garba v. The General Medical Council [2018] EWCA Civ 1879