The court was asked whether disciplinary proceedings against a number of barristers were invalid on the ground that some of the individuals who heard those proceedings or appeals therefrom were disqualified from sitting.
Held: The appeals failed. ‘ The architects of the new scheme in 2006 were creating a pool of barristers, lay representatives and others from which nominations could safely and properly be made for the purpose of disciplinary hearings and appeals. They were not placing an absolute ban on appointing persons from outside the pool as members of Disciplinary Tribunals or as Visitors. To imply such a ban would be contrary to the express provisions of the documents. It would also be surprising if there were such a prohibition, because some barristers do very specialist work; on occasions it may be appropriate to appoint a barrister or lay representative with particular expertise which is not available within the COIC pool. Furthermore there was no need for a complete ban. The court or the Visitors would step in to protect a defendant barrister, if an ineligible person were appointed to sit. This is precisely what happened in P. ‘
Jackson, Ryder, Sharp LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1630
Bailii
Legal Services Act 2007 20
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In re S (A Barrister) 1970
(Inns of Court) The regulation of barristers has been delegated by the judges to the Inns of Court. Five judges sitting as Visitors of the Inns of Court stated that ‘the judges as visitors have always had supervisory powers and their decision, upon . .
Cited – P v The General Council of the Bar; Re P (A Barrister) 24-Jan-2005
(Visitors to the Inns of Court) A Disciplinary Tribunal was convened by the President of COIC pursuant to the 2000 Regulations. It found the barrister guilty of misconduct and suspended her from practice for three months. The Visitors appointed to . .
Cited – Virdi v The Law Society of England and Wales and Another CA 16-Feb-2010
The claimant solicitor complained that in disciplinary proceedings brought against him by the respondent, the clerk to the tribunal had drafted the judgment, even though she had been an emloyee of the respondent.
Held: The description of the . .
Appeal from – Leathley and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Visitors To The Inns of Court and Another Admn 16-Oct-2013
Barristers sought permission to challenge, by way of judicial review, findings in relation to professional misconduct, and: ‘The most significant issues relate to the constitutions of the Disciplinary Tribunals convened to hear the charges against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Professions, Natural Justice
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.539986