A barrister who told a client to pay her settlement money into his business account was rightly suspended, the High Court has ruled.
Mr Justice Ritchie said that the tribunal was entitled to infer that Wayne Lewis, a barrister of 42 years, had used and mis-spent the client’s money. The judge dismissed all grounds of appeal against tribunal’s decision and upheld its sanction.
Lewis had acted on a direct access retainer in divorce proceedings and his fees were to be 15% of the sum that his client recovered. The barrister advised his client after the dispute was settled to pay the proceeds of her divorce into an account for a company bearing his name to ensure that his £52,000 fees were paid.
The Bar Standards Board said this arrangement was in breach of regulations: he was not permitted to accept or retain his client’s money, he did not provide a client care letter and did not pay the money back on demand. Indeed, he retained £17,000 of it and gave a range of excuses over the course of three years and 10 months before paying back the last tranche.
Following a four-day hearing, Lewis was found guilty earlier this year by the Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Service of all five misconduct charges and suspended for 18 months. He appealed both the findings and sanction.
The tribunal had found that Lewis arranged for the client’s money to be paid into the bank account of Wayne Lewis Ltd trading as Access Lawyers. Lewis himself had told the client he was holding the money in what he called his ‘business client account’ – words that Ritchie said were a ‘falsity’ as this was a business account, not a client one. The judge said there was ‘ample evidence’ to justify the tribunal’s findings that Lewis handled and controlled his client’s money, not Wayne Lewis Ltd.
Lewis submitted that the tribunal had failed to weigh his 40 years of good professional practise, his clean record and remorse. His misconduct was reckless rather than intentional and there was no risk of repetition. He pointed out that he would be nearly 72 when the suspension ends.
Ritchie said it was wrong to suggest that the tribunal overlooked Lewis’ age, experience and good record. The sanction of an 18-month suspension was not wrong or reached in a procedurally incorrect manner.
The judge added: ‘The appellant’s misconduct was in relation to a huge sum of money, owned by a vulnerable individual, at a delicate time in her life.
‘This misconduct was added to by the appellant accepting money when he knew he was not allowed to by the BSB handbook. It was aggravated by the appellant mixing the money with his failing company’s money and then taking £38,000 for his own purposes and never explaining what he did with that.’
