*/
Code of Conduct
At its meeting on 18 November 2010, the Board agreed to amendments to the Complaints Rules, which appear at Annexe J of the Code; amendments to the Fitness to Practise Rules in Annexe O and changes to the Interim Suspension Rules at Annexe N.
Changes to the Complaints Rules – Annexe J
The Rules have been revised substantially as a result of the transfer, on 6 October 2010, of the BSB’s jurisdiction over “service” complaints to the Legal Ombudsman. All references to “inadequate professional service”, and any functions or powers related to such complaints, have also been removed; as at 6 October 2010, the Rules contained transitional provisions to cover referral of lay client complaints to the Legal Ombudsman (Rule 14).
The BSB has until 31 March 2011 to determine IPS complaints received prior to 6 October 2010. As a result, the Rules give the BSB interim powers to deal with such complaints between 1 January and 31 March 2011 (Rule 8 and Schedule 2).
The Complaints Commissioner’s role in determining complaints has been removed, and all decisions making powers are now vested in the Complaints Committee. Under Rule 4 of the Complaints Rules 2011, authority will be given by the Committee to staff members of the Professional Conduct Department, and to certain Committee members and groups of the Committee, to take decisions on complaints.
The Rules further clarify the “test” to be applied when deciding whether a complaint should be referred to disciplinary action; the “prima facie” test has been replaced with “a realistic prospect of a finding professional misconduct being made against a barrister”. Criteria for accepting complaints submitted outside the 12 month time limit have also been revised. These amendments took effect from 1 January 2011.
Changes to the Fitness to Practise Rules – Annexe O
The amendments to the Fitness to Practise Rules, in the main, consist of replacing the Commissioner’s powers to refer cases to Fitness to Practise panels with Committee powers to do so. As well as updating terminology used in the Rules, the word “defendant” has been replaced with “barrister”, given that the Fitness Practise process is not disciplinary in nature. The amendments took effect from 1 January 2011.
Changes to the Interim Suspension Rules – Annexe N
The amendments to the Annexe are limited to the removal of the Commissioner’s power to refer barristers to an Interim Suspension panel, updating the Rules to bring them in line with the Disciplinary Regulations, as well as the revised terminology. The amendments took effect from 1 January 2011.
Changes to the Complaints Rules – Annexe J
The Rules have been revised substantially as a result of the transfer, on 6 October 2010, of the BSB’s jurisdiction over “service” complaints to the Legal Ombudsman. All references to “inadequate professional service”, and any functions or powers related to such complaints, have also been removed; as at 6 October 2010, the Rules contained transitional provisions to cover referral of lay client complaints to the Legal Ombudsman (Rule 14).
The BSB has until 31 March 2011 to determine IPS complaints received prior to 6 October 2010. As a result, the Rules give the BSB interim powers to deal with such complaints between 1 January and 31 March 2011 (Rule 8 and Schedule 2).
The Complaints Commissioner’s role in determining complaints has been removed, and all decisions making powers are now vested in the Complaints Committee. Under Rule 4 of the Complaints Rules 2011, authority will be given by the Committee to staff members of the Professional Conduct Department, and to certain Committee members and groups of the Committee, to take decisions on complaints.
The Rules further clarify the “test” to be applied when deciding whether a complaint should be referred to disciplinary action; the “prima facie” test has been replaced with “a realistic prospect of a finding professional misconduct being made against a barrister”. Criteria for accepting complaints submitted outside the 12 month time limit have also been revised. These amendments took effect from 1 January 2011.
Changes to the Fitness to Practise Rules – Annexe O
The amendments to the Fitness to Practise Rules, in the main, consist of replacing the Commissioner’s powers to refer cases to Fitness to Practise panels with Committee powers to do so. As well as updating terminology used in the Rules, the word “defendant” has been replaced with “barrister”, given that the Fitness Practise process is not disciplinary in nature. The amendments took effect from 1 January 2011.
Changes to the Interim Suspension Rules – Annexe N
The amendments to the Annexe are limited to the removal of the Commissioner’s power to refer barristers to an Interim Suspension panel, updating the Rules to bring them in line with the Disciplinary Regulations, as well as the revised terminology. The amendments took effect from 1 January 2011.
Code of Conduct
At its meeting on 18 November 2010, the Board agreed to amendments to the Complaints Rules, which appear at Annexe J of the Code; amendments to the Fitness to Practise Rules in Annexe O and changes to the Interim Suspension Rules at Annexe N.
Update from the Chair of the Bar
By Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group
Modernising communication and collaboration at a leading Chancery set. A Zexi case study
How to build profile without compromising professional duties. By Naumaan Farooq, Co-Founder of Inked PR
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the role of cut-off levels, and the wider range of factors that must be considered when interpreting results for family court proceedings
Endometriosis Awareness North, a charity raising awareness of endometriosis and supporting those affected across the North of England, has received a £500 boost from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
A decade of reviews and research has disrupted accepted thinking in the search for causality. Suicides following abuse have overtaken domestic homicides. Is the law keeping up? Professor Susan Edwards KC (Hon) examines recent cases and the obstacles to successful prosecution
The case against judge-only justice – and why efficiency is not enough. By Professor Leslie Thomas KC
Jemima Coleman and Zoë Leventhal KC on the evolving global movement seeking to reframe how we view nature: to recognise that nature possesses inherent rights and to enshrine these rights in law
Heritage as an anchor and a compass, finding our common humanity and embracing the power of the outsider – Melina Antoniadis’s lessons learnt
Lauren Fullerton examines the how, what and why of setting up a second chambers base
