*/
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.
Chair of the Bar reports back
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
Responding to criticism on the narrow profile of government-instructed counsel, Mel Nebhrajani CB describes the system-wide change at GLD to drive fairer distribution of work and broader development of talent
The odds of success are as unforgiving as ever, but ambition clearly isn’t in short supply. David Wurtzel’s annual deep‑dive into the competition cohort shows who’s entering, who’s thriving and the trends that will define the next wave
Where to start and where to find help? Monisha Shah, Chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, provides an overview of the silk selection process, debunking some myths along the way
Do chatbot providers owe a duty of care for negligent misstatements? Jasper Wong suggests that the principles applicable to humans should apply equally to machines
There is no typical day in the life as a Supreme Court judicial assistant, says Josephine Gillingwater, and that’s what makes the role so enjoyably diverse
