Bar leader says complaints handling was ‘inexcusable’
Bar leader says complaints handling was ‘inexcusable’
Chair of the bar ‘deeply concerned’ by treatment of leading KC
The chair of the Bar Council said this afternoon that the handling of a complaint against Dinah Rose KC by the Bar Standards Board was “unacceptable and inexcusable”.
Mark Fenhalls KC, who leads the body that represents barristers in England and Wales, said that he and his colleagues were deeply concerned by what had happened.
I reported yesterday that the Bar Standards Board (BSB) had issued a public apology to Rose following a report published by The Times on Monday.
The newspaper quoted the regulator as having told a complainant that Rose’s interpretation of one of the bar’s professional rules “might possibly amount to evidence of recklessness” if “taken at its highest”.
In fact, said the regulator, it “did not find Ms Rose to have been reckless or to have acted inappropriately”. Its statement continued:
The Bar Standards Board accepts that, before reviewing its original decision and in the circumstances of this case, it would have been appropriate to have invited Ms Rose to comment on the review. It apologises to Ms Rose for its failure to do so, and has commenced a review of its processes for the future.
In a statement this afternoon, Fenhalls said:
The BSB’s recent behaviour in relation to a complaint against Dinah Rose KC has given rise to an unqualified apology by the BSB. The Bar Council welcomes this apology. However, we are deeply concerned by what has happened.
It is central to the professional standards of barristers that they represent clients whether or not they approve of the client’s position and that barristers are not to be associated with their clients’ causes merely by virtue of having represented them.
The BSB’s handling of the complaint against Dinah Rose was unacceptable and inexcusable. It is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of fairness to ever issue a decision document to a complainant which is critical of a barrister without providing the barrister with an opportunity to be heard or to comment.
The BSB is failing to meet its performance indicators for the exercise of its regulatory functions. It is dealing with cases much too slowly. The BSB must now concentrate on its core responsibility of investigating allegations of professional misconduct in a timely and accurate manner and do so in a way that conforms to the elementary principles of natural justice which were overlooked in this case.
“The BSB has undertaken to review its own processes. This must be a transparent and root-and-branch review of process if the BSB is to regain the confidence of the profession and the public.
Comment
This is a remarkably robust statement by the barristers’ leader — but entirely justified on the facts as I reported them yesterday.
The relationship between the Bar Council’s representative and regulatory branches is surprisingly complicated.
By statute, the General Council of the Bar — the Bar Council — is the approved regulator for barristers. But it is required by the Legal Services Board — the “super-regulator” — to delegate its regulatory functions to an independent body.
That body is the Bar Standards Board. It is funded by fees paid by practising barristers.
The Bar Council, in its representative role, is not permitted to prejudice the exercise of the BSB’s regulatory functions. However, when acting in its representative role it regards itself as able to comment on the BSB’s handling of complaints.