header-logo header-logo

15 August 2012
Issue: 7527 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Concerns over Bar regime

Bar's disciplinary and tribunals regime criticised by review

A review of the Bar’s disciplinary and tribunals regime has identified “systemic failures”, including ineligible panel members.

The review, by the Council of the Inns of Court (COIC) disciplinary tribunal and hearings review group, highlighted “inadequate record-keeping” and “inadequate staff supervision”. It recommended greater investment in IT and case-management systems, as well as new accommodation for the tribunals secretary.

“It rapidly became clear that far too much had been expected of the tribunals secretary, who had been neither adequately supervised nor supported,” Desmond Browne QC, who chaired the review, writes in the introduction.

The review found evidence that both lay representatives and barrister volunteers appointed to the COIC panels had exceeded their three-year appointment time. Based on an initial assessment, it found nearly 700 cases may have been affected by eligibility issues, sparking concerns those decisions may need to be reviewed.

However, as noted by the review, a recent decision of the Visitors to the Inns of Court, Russell v BSB [2012] Lexis Citation 49 (QBD), indicates that the presence of a panel member whose time has expired does not invalidate the panel’s verdict.

Bar Standards Board (BSB) chair Ruth Deech says: “The publication of the COIC tribunal review report is a vital step in assuring the public and the profession that the disciplinary arrangements for the Bar of England and Wales are open and transparent.

“The BSB will continue to work with COIC as it implements the recommendations contained in the report. The improvements brought about by full implementation of the recommendations will cement the creation of an independent and modern hearings service, operating fairly, transparently and efficiently in the public interest.”

Issue: 7527 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll