Barrister representing a friend - is this allowed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
messyleo said:
Would you think about a lower cost option such as a HR consultancy / advisor
Click to expand...
I think you've misunderstood the issue. @Pink Lady 22 is not asking about getting advice/representation from a barrister. It's the other side (plaintiff/complainant) who is allegedly doing that.
 
ClubMan said:
I think you've misunderstood the issue. @Pink Lady 22 is not asking about getting advice/representation from a barrister. It's the other side (plaintiff/complainant) who is allegedly doing that.
Click to expand...

Yes but they said they are representing themselves - so may want to reconsider if they other side will have representation (or at least getting some advice beforehand)
 
Was there not a change a few years back that barristers can "Act Down " in District Court cases etc and the need for direction of a solicitor not required in some circumstances ???
 
Why not simply contact WRC cc the applicant stating : "
Rule 3.4 of the Bar Code of Conduct states that Barristers should not take instructions directly from a client . Please let me know what solicitors are acting for you the applicant
 
WRC rules allow a barrister to attend
Parties may be accompanied and represented at hearings by a trade union official, an official of a body that, in the opinion of the Adjudication Officer, represents the interests of employers, a practicing barrister or practicing solicitor or any other person, if the Adjudication Officer so permits.

So the only issue here is whether or not the barrister was engaged correctly by one of the parties.
 
Yep, I posted that earlier too.

Is there not something also in the non-adversarial nature of the WRC? It describes itself as quasi-mediation, whereas people were posting here about prohibitions on barristers engaging directly in adversarial matters.

To be honest, I’d gamble on the barrister’s own nous in this situation; professionals rarely jeopardise their own reputations, even to help mates. I suspect that he or she knows that they’re on solid ground.

I’d also be wary of an employer who’s trying to score a point on an administrative matter; it has more than a whiff of being worried about the substantive issue.
 
So there's a conflict between the wrc rules and the bar Council rules.
The practical point is- if the barrister is negligent in representing the client without a solicitor, will his professional indemnity cover that? I'd say the answer is no from the Barristers insurance cover- but that's just a guess.
Can bar Council do anything if one of their own ignores their rules. I dunno. I imagine they have some reporting procedures?
 
Bolter said:
Why not simply contact WRC cc the applicant stating : "
Rule 3.4 of the Bar Code of Conduct states that Barristers should not take instructions directly from a client . Please let me know what solicitors are acting for you the applicant
Click to expand...
That isn't a matter of concern for the WRC, they do not require a solicitor to be involved. Similarly, parties to a WRC dispute are under no obligation to divulge details of any representation. Submitting such a query to them would be a sure fire way of highlighting that they're dealing with a crank.

Trying to complain via the Bar based on speculation is unlikely to go very far.
 
Last edited:
Did the barrister put their name on the applicant submissions? If so, it's not speculation. However, if they didn't, obviously it is. I would be very surprised if a barrister put their name to the submissions. Isn't there a box to tick if you've legal representation? If the applicant has ticked that then of course you're entitled to know who that is. Do you have a copy of the applicant’s submissions. That should show everything clearly.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
To be honest, I’d gamble on the barrister’s own nous in this situation; professionals rarely jeopardise their own reputations, even to help mates. I suspect that he or she knows that they’re on solid ground.
Click to expand...
That’s really the bottom line.

I doubt it’s his/her first rodeo. If he/she is to be further involved, it’s because it’s perfectly allowable.

I’m pretty sure he/she would be amused to think anonymous posters here were so concerned about the protection of his/her professional integrity.
 
Bolter said:
Did the barrister put their name on the applicant submissions? If so, it's not speculation.
Click to expand...
You are speculating that a solicitor is not involved. The form only allows for one name, where a barrister is to act, it is their name that must be submitted.

Bolter said:
If the applicant has ticked that then of course you're entitled to know who that is.
Click to expand...
The respondent is entitled to a copy of all information provided, but as above, where the complainant has chosen to be represented by a barrister, then that's all the detail that the respondent will get. That should not be construed as evidence of a solicitor being involved or not.
 
I get the impression here is that the OP is of the opinion that the other side are being advised 'off the record' by someone who is a mate and is a barrister by profession. Personally I would call it doing your research and don't see any problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register