Barrister who ignored suspension 'not fit' to stay in profession

The High Court has backed the decision to ban a barrister who continued to work while serving a six-month suspension. Mr Justice Kerr said the Bar Tribunals & Adjudication Service was entitled to take account of Peter Wareing’s repeated offending behaviour and make an order that he be disbarred.

In Wareing v Bar Standards Board the judge said there had been a pattern of behaviour designed to get round the suspension, he had a bad previous disciplinary record, he had little insight or remorse and he had failed to engage with the disciplinary process.

‘The tribunal’s decision was not wrong, nor unjust because of a procedural or other irregularity,’ added the judge. ‘The decision was correct and there is no basis for interfering with it. I am sorry to say I agree with the tribunal that Mr Wareing is not fit to be a member of the barrister’s profession.’

The court heard that Wareing had been suspended for six months after seven charges against him had been proven in 2021: these included sending unnecessarily hostile and antagonistic correspondence; dishonestly misleading a solicitor and wrongly holding himself out as permitted to conduct litigation.

Wareing had already been instructed in four cases before the suspension on which he continued to work. He had consulted the BSB about working for an SRA-regulated entity and was told that firm would have to check with the SRA, but he was also reminded not to breach the terms of his suspension.

In one of the cases, he provided a skeleton argument for a remote hearing and signed it 'Peter Wareing Amethyst Chambers’, dropping the word ‘barrister’ from his previous signature. The judge checked his chambers website and LinkedIn profile and found he was still described as ‘counsel’ with no mention of his suspension. The judge and his opposing barrister reported him to the BSB.

The head of Amethyst Chambers told the BSB that he was aware of Wareing’s suspension and that the barrister had told him he had a letter from the Bar Council saying he could continue to practise as a solicitor’s agent. Wareing had been asked to produce the letter but, four months on, had not done so.

Wareing’s case was listed for the tribunal for March 2024 but he said he was flying to Canada on the chosen date. The tribunal refused an adjournment, despite Wareing remonstrating ‘at some length’ in an email.

The tribunal panel found Wareing made a ‘deliberate and sustained attempt’ to circumvent the terms of his suspension, to the detriment of his clients, and that disbarment was the ‘only reasonable option’.

Wareing appealed on the basis he believed he had permission to work during his suspension and that the sanction was too severe. He also argued that the tribunal should not have proceeded to hear and determine the charges in his absence.

The judge said Wareing’s ‘head was in the sand’ in relation to fixing dates and the tribunal was entitled to conclude he was not properly engaging with the disciplinary process.

‘The disciplinary charges were very serious and the arrangements for determining them should have been, but were not, treated with commensurate seriousness by Mr Wareing,’ added the judge. ‘Instead, he had proceeded with insouciance, putting domestic issues above his obligation to inform himself about and cooperate in the disciplinary process.’