A managing partner who swore at counsel also shouted at a judge, it can be revealed, in another ‘improper’ outburst which is due to be reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The solicitor, known as AB/X, shouted at the costs judge and accused her of saying ‘the most offensive thing that he had ever heard’ to him, documents seen by the Gazette show.
AB/X is due to be reported to the SRA now his anonymity is to be lifted following a Gazette intervention. He was originally granted anonymity after he sued the Ministry of Justice for not complying with a ‘subject access’ request. His alleged misconduct emerged during costs hearings following his victory in that case. AB/X was found to have carried out 'egregious overcharging' after he tried to bill the MoJ £936,875, a sum assessed downwards to £55,000. He also swore at Paul Joseph, counsel for the MoJ, at a hearing in May 2019.
A newly released approved judgment of the High Court, states that AB/X ‘evidently lost control’ as Joseph began his submissions. AB/X then walked out of the hearing and came back in at least twice, meaning the court had to abandon proceedings.
Joseph’s submissions on an authority were subsequently accepted by Costs Judge James, who ruled ‘the law was and is very clearly in favour of the defendant on this point’. Members of staff at the Senior Courts Costs Office, including James’ clerk, had been shouted at down the telephone, by AB/X, the judgment added.
But Costs Judge James was shouted at herself during a remote hearing on 14 September 2020. Prior to the hearing, AB/X had made ‘strenuous efforts’ to prevent it from going ahead on the day, including making leave to appeal and injunction applications.
It began with AB/X stating he could not participate by telephone because a hearing impairment meant he spoke loudly, and he did not wish to be accused of shouting. Despite reassurances on this point, he argued that the hearing would constitute a breach of his human rights, the judgment states.
The judge asked why AB/X's solicitor, identified in the judgment as 'PC', could not assist. The judge also asked why, if AB/X knew he would be in difficulty participating due to a hearing impairment, he had not arranged for someone else from his firm (or counsel) to attend. ‘At this point AB shouted down the phone at Costs Judge James that this question was contrary to the Equality Act and was the most offensive thing that he had ever heard, and that Costs Judge James was saying that a hearing-impaired person could not conduct litigation, which was utterly appalling, offensive and outrageous, and would result in a claim’, the judgment records.
The judgment states: 'It was clearly improper and unreasonable of AB to shout at Costs Judge James in the way that he did, over a situation not of her making. However, the more worrying issue is that, in this court’s judgment, this was likely done on purpose to achieve what the leave to appeal and injunction applications did not achieve.’
Mrs Justice May DBE has ruled that AB/X should be named, but there is a stay on identifying him until later this month in case of an appeal.
