Barrister representing a friend - is this allowed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pink Lady 22 said:
So if I was to let it be known during the document upload stage that I was aware of the relationship between client & BL & the breach of codes of conduct they wouldn’t be bothered?
Click to expand...
It’s hard to know and I suspect would depend on the attitude of the adjudicator adjudicating the complaint. Also it might depend on the WRC’s representation policy, if there is one.

On the one hand, the WRC mightn’t be bothered and take the view that whoever represents the client is a matter for the client. And that the adherence to ethical codes of members of other professional bodes is not a matter for the WRC.

But on the other hand, once the WRC is on formal notice of an ethical issue concerning a lawyer representing a client appearing before it, the WRC might seek to have the matter rectified before dealing with the complaint by the appointment of a Solicitor. The rationale here being that the WRC as a statutory body cannot be seen to be facilitating a breach of ethics of a member of a professional body.
 
Johnno75 said:
But on the other hand, once the WRC is on formal notice of an ethical issue concerning a lawyer representing a client appearing before it, the WRC might seek to have the matter rectified before dealing with the complaint by the appointment of a Solicitor. The rationale here being that the WRC as a statutory body cannot be seen to be facilitating a breach of ethics of a member of a professional body.
Click to expand...
What breach of ethics precisely?

I'm pretty certain there is no requirement anywhere prohibiting a barrister representing in an adversarial forum a client with whom they're previously acquaintanted.
 
T McGibney said:
What breach of ethics precisely?

I'm pretty certain there is no requirement anywhere prohibiting a barrister representing in an adversarial forum a client with whom they're previously acquaintanted.
Click to expand...
Go back to the start of the thread and see the specific provisions of the Bar Code of Conduct I’ve referenced.
 
T McGibney said:
If the person involved in the case is lucky enough to be able to call on a close friend who happens to be a barrister, your concern about them being lumbered with

must presumably turn to dust?
Click to expand...
Not really.

If the close friend is compelled to involve a solicitor because of the rules of his professional body, the additional layer of representation will ultimately be borne by the complainant.
 
Salvadore said:
Not really.

If the close friend is compelled to involve a solicitor because of the rules of his professional body, the additional layer of representation will ultimately be borne by the complainant.
Click to expand...
But if, as presumably is the case, the barrister will be charging their close friend less than the going rate, your claim that they will
Salvadore said:
have an expensive multi-layered legal team.
Click to expand...
simply won't be the case.
 
Last edited:
Pink Lady 22 said:
So if I was to let it be known during the document upload stage that I was aware of the relationship between client & BL & the breach of codes of conduct they wouldn’t be bothered?
Click to expand...
At best you’re only delaying the inevitable. A complainant is entitled to representation and you will be seen to have made this as difficult as possible for him/her, for reasons that appear petty.

Don’t expect too much sympathy from the adjudicator.
 
Johnno75 said:
Go back to the start of the thread and see the specific provisions of the Bar Code of Conduct I’ve referenced.
Click to expand...
3.4. In contentious matters, save for the purpose of acting in proceedings in
accordance with Rule 5.25 Barristers should not take instructions directly from a client. Barristers shall not visit a client in prison unless attended.
Click to expand...
5.25. Barristers appear in any court as of right and not by courtesy of the Court and it is not necessary or desirable that they should be introduced to the Court by a solicitor or any of its officers.
Click to expand...
Those provisions do not advance your claim one bit. In fact they undermine it.
 
T McGibney said:
But if, as presumably is the case, the barrister will be charging their close friend less than the going rate, your claim that they will

simply won't get the case.
Click to expand...
Well I can’t think of any circumstances where the combined cost of a barrister and solicitor (even on mates’ rates) is going to be anything other than expensive but if you’re telling me you know otherwise, I accept that.
 
Salvadore said:
Well I can’t think of any circumstances where the combined cost of a barrister and solicitor (even on mates’ rates) is going to be anything other than expensive but if you’re telling me you know otherwise, I accept that.
Click to expand...
Why? I'm aware of cases where barristers have acted for friends and other close associates without charging a dime.
 
T McGibney said:
Those provisions do not advance your claim one bit. In fact they undermine it.
Click to expand...
A barrister generally cannot take instructions directly from a client in the absence of a Solicitor.

Where the client contacts a barrister directly, the barrister should do nothing until contacted by the client’s solicitor or if urgent, the Barrister can contact the client’s Solicitor.

In the within case, there is no Solicitor on record. And the barrister is acting on foot of the client’s direct instructions. WRC matters are contentious by nature.

It naturally follows that where no Solicitor is on record, the Barrister acting in the WRC forum in the absence of a Solicitor is acting in breach of the Code.

A Barrister can act in a contentious forum alone, but needs a Solicitor on record.

It really is that clear. I can’t see how what I’ve said undermines my position.
 
Salvadore said:
At best you’re only delaying the inevitable. A complainant is entitled to representation and you will be seen to have made this as difficult as possible for him/her, for reasons that appear petty.

Don’t expect too much sympathy from the adjudicator.
Click to expand...
Hi Salvadore - I plan to represent myself at the wrc - I’m confident in my case but am very nervous. I also believe that this BL ‘coached’ his client friend during a HR process. I’m taking this all the way if I have too. I owe it to my employees that may lose their jobs if things don’t go to plan. If I can lose this BL at the early stages all the better.
 
Johnno75 said:
A barrister generally cannot take instructions directly from a client in the absence of a Solicitor.

Where the client contacts a barrister directly, the barrister should do nothing until contacted by the client’s solicitor or if urgent, the Barrister can contact the client’s Solicitor.

In the within case, there is no Solicitor on record. And the barrister is acting on foot of the client’s direct instructions. WRC matters are contentious by nature.

It naturally follows that where no Solicitor is on record, the Barrister acting in the WRC forum in the absence of a Solicitor is acting in breach of the Code.

A Barrister can act in a contentious forum alone, but needs a Solicitor on record.

It really is that clear. I can’t see how what I’ve said undermines my position.
Click to expand...

We know all that.

You disputed this point but haven't explained why.
T McGibney said:
I'm pretty certain there is no requirement anywhere prohibiting a barrister representing in an adversarial forum a client with whom they're previously acquainted.
Click to expand...
 
Pink Lady 22 said:
Hi Salvadore - I plan to represent myself at the wrc - I’m confident in my case but am very nervous. I also believe that this BL ‘coached’ his client friend during a HR process. I’m taking this all the way if I have too. I owe it to my employees that may lose their jobs if things don’t go to plan. If I can lose this BL at the early stages all the better.
Click to expand...
Even if you can "lose" the BL - which presumably means them not being permitted to be present at the hearing - you have absolutely no control over them "coaching" or otherwise advising the other party. Seems to me that you should focus on arguing your own case on its own merits rather than trying to interfere with the other party's approach?
 
ClubMan said:
Even if you can "lose" the BL - which presumably means them not being permitted to be present at the hearing - you have absolutely no control over them "coaching" or otherwise advising the other party. Seems to me that you should focus on arguing your own case on its own merits rather than trying to interfere with the other party's approach?
Click to expand...
That’s the best advice possible.
 
Pink Lady 22 said:
Hi Salvadore - I plan to represent myself at the wrc - I’m confident in my case but am very nervous.
Click to expand...
Is your confidence well-founded?

Is it based on what you believe to be natural justice or an understanding of the person’s case relative to the relevant legislation.

In my experience, even where complaints have little obvious merit, employers often lose cases because of their failure to previously apply proper procedures in dealing with employees.
 
Salvadore said:
Is your confidence well-founded?

Is it based on what you believe to be natural justice or an understanding of the person’s case relative to the relevant legislation.

In my experience, even where complaints have little obvious merit, employers often lose cases because of their failure to previously apply proper procedures in dealing with employees.
Click to expand...

Yes agree with this. Even if the arguments of the case stack up for you, procedure, procedure, procedure is everything. Somebody who was fired for what was 100% gross misconduct (e.g. theft) can get a payout for unfair dismissal if the correct disciplinary procedures were not followed for example.
Would you think about a lower cost option such as a HR consultancy / advisor - at least to have a consult before hand and offer a strategy? They may help you avoid any obvious pitfalls and cover off risks etc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top