Barrister Disciplinary – Reported & Notable Cases
Barristers
M v BSB (2026)
(Appeal by barrister to BTAS against administrative sanctions; lawfulness of BSB’s administrative sanction powers placed in issue; terms of settlement agreed before hearing with expungement of all findings against the barrister).
H v Bar Standards Board (2026) 28 April, Mrs Justice Dias (Administrative Court)
(Appeal against sanction; barrister imprisoned for 23 months for causing death by dangerous driving, but released on licence after 9 months; whether BTAS suspension should run for the full 23 months; Marc Beaumont persuaded High Court on appeal to depart from Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals v General Dental Council & Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 (Admin), so that the BTAS suspension should have ended as from release on licence).
BSB v H (2025) BTAS Disciplinary Tribunal, 4.11.25
(Highly regarded family barrister in the North East of England in car accident; convicted of causing death by dangerous driving; sentence of imprisonment; released on licence; whether he should be permitted to return to practice; suspension to end of licence period).
BSB v A (2025)
(BSB Investigation; Barrister acted for family member in criminal case; representations by Marc Beaumont; allegations dismissed)
Re S, barrister (2025)
(Chambers’ dispute; barrister with neuro-developmental disability bullied by London chambers; Marc Beaumont brokered settlement of dispute with Head of Chambers).
Re A, barrister (2025)
(Barrister with alcohol addiction; internal disciplinary process instigated against him; Marc Beaumont brokered settlement of dispute with Head of Chambers).
T v BSB [2025] EWHC 1029 (Admin)
(Direct access client’s papers lost in chambers; barrister stated falsely that he had left them at home; assertion this was. a `white lie; barrister self-represented at trial; default sanction is disbarment; sanction imposed: 6 months’ suspension; tantamount to a £100,000 fine; T instructed Marc Beaumont to draft and argue an appeal against sanction; appeal allowed; substitution of a fine of £25,000 for original suspension; BSB to pay costs of appeal to be set-off against fine).
BSB v D (2025) January
(D, a young female pupil in a chancery/commercial set of chambers in London; accused of plagiarising her pupilmaster’s Skeleton Argument in an internal assessment baed on a past case in which he had acted; Dismissed from pupillage after an exceptionally unpleasant investigation by the chambers; and investigated and prosecuted by the BSB; Marc Beaumont represented D at final hearing; oral plea in mitigation; client in a state of profound emotional breakdown; suspension; career options kept alive)
Re a barrister (2024) August
(B reported to BSB for failing to pay fees of other counsel who acted for him; no debt due in law as counsel had instructing solicitors who failed to pay him, as they failed to pursue B and did not obtain counsel’s fees on account from B; counsel did not wish to upset solicitors by demanding they pay his fees, but reported B to BSB after several years of non-payment; written representations drafted by Marc Beaumont; 3 complaints dismissed and administrative sanction (warning) on 2 others;
Re a barrister (2024) July
(Senior Jersey advocate; had never practised in England; held by Jersey Royal Court and Jersey Court of Appeal to have misled the Jersey Court of Appeal when representing Leeds United FC; B also a member of E&W Bar; written representations drafted by Marc Beaumont; main complaint replicating Jersey finding dismissed by IDP; administrative sanction (warning) for failure to self-report Jersey disciplinary finding to BSB ).
Re a barrister (2024) January
(Allegation of sexual harassment against senior junior male barrister made by female barrister X to BSB; written representations drafted by Marc Beaumont; insistence on due process; complaint dismissed by IDB)
Re a barrister (2023) December
(representing bullied senior junior within chambers’ dispute on Northern Circuit; negotiation of overall settlement).
Re CD, King’s Counsel (2023) November
(Chambers investigation; allegations against criminal silk within chambers; wholly without merit; threats to report to BSB; written representations from Marc Beaumont; allegations withdrawn)
Inns Conduct Committee v S (2023) July
(allegation of plagiarism against student barrister; Marc Beaumont secured exoneration)
BSB v XY King’s Counsel (2023) May
(Senior King’s Counsel accused of false fee claim; Marc Beaumont’s written representations; IDB dismissed complaint)
BSB v T (2023) April
(Barrister putting forward argument X in Case B, accused of failing to cite in Case B, the decision in Case A in which argument X failed when put forward by the same barrister only a short time before case B; Marc Beaumont’s written representations; Case A was a County Court decision and so not binding “authority”; barrister exonerated).
BSB v M (2023) March
(Barrister accused of giving dishonest evidence on oath in personal litigation; allegations incapable of being explained by judge or BSB; allegation dismissed)
BSB v H (2022) December
(Private correspondence fell into hands of barrister; used in subsequent correspondence; report to BSB; written submissions from Marc Beaumont; barrister response constrained by LPP; submissions successful and complaint dismissed).
BSB v O (2022) Nov
(Circuit Judge reported barrister to BSB for allegedly misleading the court on an issue of wasted costs; Marc Beaumont’s written submission that report misconceived; Successful and complaint dismissed).
BSB v B (2022) September
(Barrister use of social media; Twitter; tweets about anti-semitism in the Labour Party under Mr Jeremy Corbyn; barrister a member of a twitter account from which tweets made about another barrister; successful basis of plea agreed and mitigation accepted; reprimand and small fine).
Kwiatkowski v Bar Standards Board [2022] EWHC 1800 (Admin)
(Barrister referred to the female maker of a witness statement criticising his female instructing solicitor as an “hysterical woman” and described an emotional sea-change in the profession arising from there being more female lawyers; issue of freedom of expression; Art 10 ECHR; constraints on barrister freedom of speech; whether lawful).
KF v Bar Standards Board. [2022] EWHC 1128 (Admin)
(Appeal by barrister to High Court; Sexual assault by barrister on member of chambers in private life; criminal conviction; attempt at cover story in private texts; whether a ‘white lie’ ?; By majority 4:1, 3 sentences of disbarment; medical condition; application of Howd v BSB [2017] 4 WLR 54; scope of reach of BSB into private life; ECHR Article 8; whether disbarment manifestly excessive; 3 disbarments set aside and replaced with 3 suspensions of 2 years, 4 months and 2 months; whether dissenting judgments should be published; whether dissenting panellist’s identity should be secret).
BSB v JT (2022)
(Barrister responded to tweet by Julie Burchill about the possible name of a baby to be born to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex; her remarks were misconstrued; BSB investigation; Marc Beaumont’s written representations; free speech issues; ECHR Article 10; complaints by over 80 members of the public dismissed).
(Allegations that a male barrister called a female legal executive’s impugnment of his female instructing solicitor, “hysterical” and made a remark about female lawyers “over-egging the pudding” . Freedom of speech issues under ECHR Art 10. Held, it is professional misconduct to make such remarks and the code trumps Art 10 rights; case under appeal).
BSB v B (2021)
(Allegations of money laundering against barrister; written representations by Marc Beaumont; exoneration.).
AB v Bar Standards Board [2020] EWHC 3285 (Admin)
(Appeal to High Court by disbarred barrister, who did not attend disciplinary trial. Marc Beaumont did not act at trial. Alleged misconduct related to private family proceedings about education of barrister’s children. Test under Bar Handbook CD5 concerned public perceptions, but public omitted from family proceedings. Whether CD5 test applicable to private proceedings; whether BSB can prosecute a barrister self-representing in family law proceedings).
Bar Standards Board v H (2020) Sept
(unregistered barrister; whether providing a forwarding address is ‘conduct of litigation’; whether sending a witness statement to court is ‘conduct of litigation’; online trolling of barrister leading to request to Google to remove review; whether request misleading. )
Bar Standards Board v B (2020) Sept
(barrister made remark that an Asian and female judge had secured her position only due to positive discrimination; whether a breach of CD5; explanation that barrister referred to positive discrimination in favour of solicitor applicants; whether need for a Newton hearing)
Bar Standards Board v XY, a barrister (2019) June (in camera)
(Barrister swore at a High Court Judge in open court, having suffered a breakdown after years of BSB prosecutions against him; BSB commenced Fitness to Practise proceedings; held, Marc Beaumont defending, – barrister not unfit to practise).
D v Bar Standards Board [2018] EWHC 2762 (Admin) (Divisional Court, Cardiff)
(BSB error in drafting its Handbook gave it no power in 2016 to remit unregistered barristers to 5-person tribunals; trial before 5 person panel in 2016; error disclosed in 2018; appeal out of time to quash conviction and sanction of 12 months’ suspension; whether error procedural or jurisdictional; effect of R v Soneji line of cases; whether section 24 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 depriving non-disbarred barristers of any right of appeal to the Court of Appeal unlawful.
BSB v JB (2018) October
(Investigation of unregistered barrister; conduct as litigation friend; internal administrative sanctions of BSB placed in issue by Marc Beaumont; investigation dropped).
Forz Khan v Bar Standards Board [2018] EWHC 2184 (Admin)
(Appeal to High Court; barrister released sensitive information about another barrister in 2 robing rooms; Whether “professional misconduct” as defined in Howd v BSB; whether disciplinary proceedings a violation of barrister’s right to freedom of expression in Article 10 of the ECHR; sanction of suspension reduced by 4 months to 3 months, as excessive and disproportionate; whether a disciplinary conviction based on a guilty plea can be appealed)
In Re B a barrister (2018) Jan
(BSB investigation into barrister acting for his girlfriend; private life / Article 8 defence drafted by Marc Beaumont; complaint dismissed)
Damian McCarthy v Bar Standards Board [2017] EWHC (Admin) 969
(Barrister tried and disbarred before judge x; overturned decision on appeal; re-trial before judge y; judge x was judge y’s former Pupilmaster and Head of Chambers; parts of decision of judge y identical to decision of judge x; whether apparent bias).
JS, a barrister v Bar Standards Board, Collins J (costs) (2017) Jan
JS, a barrister v BSB (2016) November, Administrative Court, Collins J.
(successful defence of senior barrister accused of practising without a practising certificate for 15 months; Bar Council computer glitch; Bar Council omitted to serve demand or reminder; application of test of seriousness in Walker v BSB to the BSB Handbook).
Smith v Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund (2016) June, Financial Ombudsman Service
(successful complaint by a barrister to FOS concerning his right to choose his own solicitors to act for him in the face of insurer insisting on a panel firm)
BSB v Smith (2016) May
(whether and, if so, when negligence is “professional misconduct”)
BSB v J. Dorairaj (2016) February
(allegation of theft against barrister; disbarment avoided after mitigation)
Regina (M, a barrister) v Legal Ombudsman [2015] December
(High Court judicial review challenge to LeO findings against a barrister; LeO findings quashed by consent)
BSB v Bethell BTAS (2015) November
(trial of allegations of forging London University LLB certificates and fabricating degree award)
BSB v S (2015) June
(whether legal professional privilege waived by client; whether regulator has a duty to obtain documents from the complainant)
BSB v L (2015) May
(alleged misbehaviour of off-duty barrister at a social function; whether BSB prosecution violated ECHR Articles 8 (privacy) or 10 (freedom of expression))
Reg (Carron Russell, a barrister) v Bar Standards Board Court of Appeal, 26.11.14
Disciplinary tribunal panel member time expired. Whether unlawful & whether tribunal compliant with ECHR, Art 6, EU Charter, Art 47; whether panel member a de facto judge or whether de facto judge principle unlawful by virtue of Art 14 of the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights.
Reg (M, a barrister) v Legal Ombudsman High Court, Nov 2014
Successful application for relief from sanction of automatic strike out, applying Denton v White, arising from non-payment of court fee in JR
BSB v AXM (2010-2014)
(Advising, acting and reaching settlement in a continuing, high profile series of BSB prosecutions against a leading barrister relating to events over 10 years ago).
BSB v X, a barrister (2014) 13.11.14
(application to strike out; whether an allegation of negligence can amount to professional misconduct; application of Calhaem test to barrister disciplinary cases).
BSB v XY (2014) May
(successful defence of barrister at trial at BTAS Disciplinary Tribunal; allegations against client dismissed).
R (Rosemarine) v Legal Ombudsman [2014] EWHC 601 (Admin; Manchester)
(Judicial Review against the Legal Ombudsman; whether consideration of a fresh complaint outside of LeO jurisdiction by virtue of s. 126 of the Legal Services Act 2007; bias)
Bar Standards Board v J [2013] Nov; BTAS Disciplinary Tribunal
(Marc Beaumont’s application for further & better particulars of charges; BSB unable to answer; prosecution dropped against very senior member of the Bar).
Bar Standards Board v S [2013] Nov; Spencer J.
(exoneration of barrister by Legal Ombudsman; same charge then made by BSB; whether cause of action estoppel / res judicata / abuse of process).
Bar Standards Board v X [2013] Nov
(allegations against barrister of sexual harassment and discrimination against pupil; dropped after plea bargain)
Bar Standards Board v M [2013] October
(Marc Beaumont drafted detailed response to complaints to BSB about barrister; all allegations dismissed)
Reg (Mehey et al) v Bar Standards Board [2013] 16th October, High Court, Lawtel 24.10.13.
(judicial review arising from failures of due process in the Bar’s disciplinary arrangements discovered by a report by COIC in 2012; time expired disciplinary judges – whether a tribunal “established by law” under ECHR Art. 6 and Art. 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; whether Art 47 now has direct effect in UK; whether laid down selection process of disciplinary judges had to be followed at all; whether prosecutor could partake in selection process of disciplinary judges; whether a disciplinary judge could properly receive an undisclosed salary from the prosecutor; whether logjam in Visitorial appeals process caused unlawful delay; whether proper Art. 6 security of tenure when BSB sits on committee (COIC) with the power to remove disciplinary judges from the “pool” at will; whether “discreditable” conduct should be defined).
Russell v Bar Standards Board Number 2 [2013] 23rd May, Visitors to the Inns of Court
(correct test for Barrister appeals; whether outside the ex improviso rule, prosecutor may call evidence after prosecution and defence case closed; use of debarring orders against prosecutor; whether tribunal may “enter the arena” and strongly request the attendance of a prosecution witness; whether BSB has power to summons witnesses; whether prosecutor may communicate with disciplinary judge behind the back of the defence; whether such communication redolent of actual bias of judge where judge wishes prosecutor good luck on appeal; whether apparent bias doctrine can be engaged by post-trial conduct of judge; legal effect of serving BSB prosecutions department officer being 1 of 4 appointing members of the COIC “Tribunals Appointments Body” (TAB); whether TAB ultra vires the Bar’s Constitutions; whether open-ended power of removal of member of COIC pool without cause, unlawful given position of BSB Chair and senior staff on COIC; whether ECHR Article 6 guarantees against pressure on disciplinary judges to conform with a prosecutorial mentality; whether disciplinary judges Art. 6 “independent” within Findlay v United Kingdom given key role of BSB prosecutions department in appointing disciplinary judges; serious non-disclosure by BSB of notes of secret meeting between BSB and disciplinary judge until day before appeal and despite requests and application for disclosure by defence)
R v Bar Standards Board [2013] Lawtel, 6th August, Visitors to Inns of Court
(Meaning of “discreditable” conduct where loan not repaid by Barrister)
XH v Bar Standards Board [2013] February; BTAS Review panel,
(Order for disclosure of full sponsor report for use at disciplinary trial)
Q v Bar Standards Board [2013] Lawtel 6th March; Visitors to the Inns of Court (Williams J and 2 others)
(Trial panel convicted Barrister and suspended her, but gave no oral or written reasons for decision; appeal allowed; appeal costs against BSB)
Bar Standards Board v O [2012] November
(Serious allegations against Barrister with Football Association licence; plea bargain; serious allegations dropped; pleas to CPD infringements; advised as to future conduct).
Reg (Conlon) v Bar Standards Board [2012] 11th October 2012, Court of Appeal
(whether the Visitors to the Inns of Court have had the power since 2000 lawfully to sit with non-judge wingmen; whether decision in Russell v BSB on time expiry correct; whether a Barrister can properly sit as a disciplinary tribunal member whilst being remunerated by the BSB in another post);
Bar Standards Board v O’Connor (a Barrister) [2012] 17th August, Visitors to the Inns of Court (Sir Andrew Collins and 2 others);
(A successful appeal by Marc Beaumont for a Barrister against 5 findings of professional misconduct; signing a statement of truth and serving a pleading are not “the conduct of litigation;” meaning of, “discreditable to a Barrister;” trial panel gave no oral or written reasons for decision, nor did it allow any closing speech by the defence; gross breaches of natural justice; Chair of trial panel only honorary QC; not authorised to sit)
Bar Standards Board v H [2012] July 28.
(2 sets of BSB proceedings struck out; application for costs; Baxendale-Walker criteria; Costs awarded against BSB)
Russell v Bar Standards Board [2012] The Visitors to the Inns of Court, 12th July.
(Test case; hundreds of Barrister convictions found to have been made by time-expired disciplinary tribunal members; in this case, disciplinary panel member’s tenure time-expired in breach of clearly laid down COIC requirements for his appointment; held, Singh J – this does not matter and even if it does, he was a de facto judge)
Bar Standards Board v H [2012] 29th February, Kenneth Parker J.
(Charges having been struck out, BSB applied for permission to amend to add 2 new Charges; application successfully opposed by Marc Beaumont; No proper investigation of X’s practising status by BSB before charging him; BSB prosecuted X for not having a practising certificate when he had one and then tried to amend to prosecute him for holding himself out as a self-employed Barrister when he had the BSB’s prior permission to do so; Case dismissed; sponsor reports to be disclosed by BSB without any redactions unless some public interest in non-disclosure)
Bar Standards Board v AXM a barrister [2012] Court of Appeal 9th February.
(Judicial review of BSB decision to prosecute a Barrister; “sponsor” Barrister failed to advise BSB Complaints Committee of professional context of Barrister’s actions; Committee did not read Barrister’s full response to complaint before deciding to prosecute him; failure of due process).
H v Bar Standards Board [2012] January
(Charge of “holding out” as a Barrister; application by Marc Beaumont to strike out; Charge struck out).
Leathley v Bar Standards Board [2012] 20th January.
(Appeal to Visitors to the Inns of Court; BSB, the prosecutor, paying fees and expenses of lay panel members and supplying them with secret guidance pack; whether lay panel members should be recused on grounds of apparent bias.)
Bar Standards Board v AXM (a barrister) [2011] July
(Whether internal “sponsor reports” about the decision to prosecute a Barrister are disclosable and the relevant test where the Barrister raises a public law defence).
Bar Standards Board v B (a barrister) [2011] February, Wilkie J.
(A TV personality, F, was terminally ill, had no money and was in the throes of divorce. X, a barrister, provided F with pro bono assistance. F lived in France. Solicitor for Mrs F, reported X to the BSB for acting without an instructing solicitor on a direct access basis. Long investigation. X advised to admit breach of Code of Conduct. Advice wrong. Adviser overlooked the exculpatory effect of the International Practice Rules, as F lived in France. BSB Charge based on the admission of fault. Marc Beaumont instructed in place of first adviser, formally withdrew the admission and made full written submissions to BSB. Result: Charge withdrawn).
Bar Standards Board v O [2010] October
(Guidance from High Court Judge as to BSB providing proper particulars of its Charges).
Bar Standards Board v Russell [2010] June, Bar Disciplinary Tribunal (5 person).
(Allegation of dishonesty, mitigation, successfully urged suspension rather than disbarment).
Bar Standards Board v Russell [2010] March
(Charges of professional misconduct, charges successfully struck out and/or BSB forced to amend to reduce seriousness and breadth).
Bar Standards Board v M [2010] January.
(Barrister immigration specialist charged by BSB with advertising for immigration work on a direct/public access basis; BSB had in the meantime approved Code of Conduct changes allowing immigration work under the Bar Public Access scheme; written submissions drafted by Marc Beaumont as to this and other issues; on receipt of those submissions, BSB offered no evidence).
Bar Standards Board v S [2008] July
(Defended Barrister accused of dishonesty. Internal Chambers dispute. Acquittal).
P v The General Council of the Bar [2005] Lawtel
(The case that established that it is unlawful for a Bar Disciplinary Tribunal to include serving members of the PCC – acted pro bono as Junior Counsel at trial)