*/
Serious complaints made to chambers, especially those involving bullying, harassment or discrimination, can present serious legal, reputational and operational challenges. An effective response will be prompt, compliant with Bar Standards Board (BSB) regulations and guidance, protective of individual rights, and managed fairly, effectively and with sensitivity to all those involved. Chambers need to react quickly, but within the constraints of any relevant employment, regulatory and data protection law considerations, and in the context of the commercial and reputational implications that often arise when such complaints are made and investigated.*
This article is a best practice guide as to how chambers might wish to approach the handling of serious complaints of misconduct. This will be particularly pertinent for chambers following the recent publication of the Harman Report.
In the often critical, first few hours following the receipt of a serious complaint, chambers need to be prepared, to avoid the situation where they are scrambling to make decisions without a proper framework. Ideally, a complaint should trigger the implementation of steps set out in a pre-established crisis management plan. The plan will identify the individuals responsible for managing the response, and this ‘core group’ will be composed of a small number of senior decision makers who are trusted and importantly, trained, to run the process.
The plan should define when external legal advice ought to be sought and who will form the client group in such circumstances. A clearly identified client group makes any later assertion of legal professional privilege that much stronger, should this be challenged in court or by a regulator.
At the outset, and throughout, chambers should assess what kind of legal, HR, PR or other strategic advice they might need. Depending on the nature of the complaint, this may include the following areas:
While using in-house expertise may reduce cost, it necessarily widens the circle of individuals with sensitive knowledge and can impact working relationships. Chambers will need to strike the right balance based on the nature, complexity, and sensitivity of the complaint.
Every investigation ought to begin with a clear understanding of chambers’ priorities. These typically include maintaining confidentiality, protecting the legal rights of all parties and ensuring that the process is compliant and scrupulously fair. It is worth noting that the Harman Report recommended that chambers policy frameworks should be backed up by a constitution that requires members and employees to comply with policies, procedures and decisions as to sanctions.
Chambers should then identify which internal policies are relevant to the resolution of the complaint and ensure that the processes set out in those polices are followed. These may include:
Care should be taken in determining whether the matter falls under a whistleblowing framework, formal grievance, or disciplinary route and external standards such as the BSB Handbook (and see the Bar Council Guidance on Conducting an Investigation in Chambers for a more expansive summary of what is required) and Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) guidance should also be considered.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance on protected characteristics will also assist where there are allegations of discrimination. Pupil supervisors and chambers’ equality and diversity officer should have specific training in relation to this as they will likely be the ones handling initial concerns.
Prompt steps should be taken to preserve any relevant digital records, such as emails, social media messages, or CCTV footage.
When criminal conduct is alleged and a police investigation underway or anticipated, chambers may still carry out its own internal investigation. The courts (e.g., North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust v Dr Andrew Gregg [2019] EWCA Civ 387) have confirmed that internal disciplinary processes can proceed concurrently with police investigations unless doing so risks a miscarriage of justice.
In such cases, however, chambers will want to ensure that they do not prejudice or otherwise negatively impact the police investigation and are advised to:
These measures will help to protect the integrity of both the internal and potential criminal investigations.
Chambers may need to access electronic data held on devices as part of its investigation (e.g. WhatsApp messages). Chambers should have robust data access and privacy clauses in its policies that clarify the circumstances in which devices may be accessed, the scope of the access and how chambers may require cooperation from members in providing information. In principle, chambers can access personal devices as part of its investigation, but this must be made explicit in its policies.
All parties in an investigation, the complainant, the respondent and the witnesses, have important legal rights that must be respected. For instance:
Thus, all communications during the currency of an investigation should be made with these various rights in mind. Even inadvertent confirmations of an ongoing investigation can lead to defamation claims, such as those seen in the Cliff Richard and XYZ cases, in which the right to privacy during police investigations, up to the point of charge, was affirmed.
As such, information sharing should be minimised and undertaken on a strictly ‘need-to-know basis’. Consideration should be given to the use of ciphers in any written material produced and material should be securely stored with passwords and other measures designed to prevent access.
Chambers should also be mindful of vicarious liability risks from individuals who share or republish defamatory or private material. As chambers may be held responsible for the republication of damaging information by its employees, the fewer people that know about it, the better.
Chambers should prepare, at the outset, for the (however remote) possibility that details of the complaint may become public through leaks, regulatory disclosures, civil claims (e.g. for discrimination or personal injury) or tribunal proceedings. This may be a simple as ensuring that everyone in the clerks’ room knows who the appointed spokesperson is, should the press contact chambers. At the other end of the spectrum, in cases where press interest could be significant, it may extend to appointing a PR expert. All external communication involving the press must be cautious in the extreme and any responses given should be short and factual, if any response is indicated at all.
Any investigation undertaken by chambers must be:
Care should be taken where pupils or junior tenants are involved. Bar Council guidance recommends that where appropriate, pupils be offered alternative supervision and reassurances about tenancy prospects, to encourage openness.
If new allegations arise during the process, they should be added to the investigation (if related) without restarting it. The key point is to ensure that all allegations are eventually put to the respondent with the opportunity given to respond.
Decisions about the cross sharing of evidence (say the complaint’s account with the respondent and vice versa), will need to be made early on, so that the expectations of relevant parties are met; there is no set rule about what fairness requires here, it will depend on the nature of the complaint.
Given that most chambers are unregulated, the BSB reporting obligation will often fall on the barrister members involved in the investigation, or the Head or Heads of Chambers. The obligation is to report promptly to the BSB where there are reasonable grounds to believe that another person (regulated by the BSB) has committed serious misconduct. The barrister members involved in the investigation will need to consider if they are under a duty to report to the BSB. In some circumstances, it may be appropriate to wait until the investigation has concluded before reporting: the BSB guidance on reporting is a valuable tool here. It might be appropriate in the first instance to make a report without naming one, or indeed both, of the parties involved, particularly if the complainant has not agreed to such a report being made.
Once the investigation is complete, if a BSB report has not already been made, chambers should finally determine whether to report to the BSB and what information to share. Consideration will need to be given as to whether any final report produced is privileged, before it is shared.
As well as providing information to the BSB, Chambers may need to respond to requests to disclose investigation materials under data subject access requests (DSARs). Good record keeping and clarity on privilege from the start are critical to navigating these requests. The safest approach throughout an investigation is to assume that all material produced in the currency of the investigation may later become disclosable.
Following misconduct investigations, new challenges arise, especially if both parties remain in chambers. Chambers will need to:
Chambers will need to guard against victimisation claims. For example, it is possible that the complainant will not want to return to work if the accused is still there. In this circumstance, thought should be given to limiting the extent of interaction between them. Chambers may also be exposed to a constructive (unfair) dismissal claim if an employee complainant resigns in circumstances where they feel they have been left with no other choice. Equally, it may be difficult for the accused to continue to work in chambers, particularly if people they work with have been witnesses in the investigation. Chambers sits between the complainant and the accused and should remain neutral in devising solutions to such issues.
Chambers will also want to look ahead. Lessons learnt from the investigation should inform updates to policies and training. A strong ‘speak-up’ culture, underpinned by clear behavioural expectations, is the best long-term safeguard against recurrence.
Handling serious complaints of misconduct in chambers can be challenging. With early planning, and careful deployment of the (fair and compliant) process established, chambers will be well placed to manage such complaints fairly, supporting all parties involved while protecting the values and ultimately, the reputation of the organisation.
The BSB Handbook and bullying and harassment information page
The Harman Report: Independent review of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment at the Bar, 8 September 2025
Conducting an Investigation in Chambers – Bar Council – Practice & Ethics
Reporting serious misconduct – BSB
Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance on protected characteristics
Julie Norris, Partner in Kingsley Napley’s Regulatory team, acts in the legal services sector, advising law firms, solicitors, and barristers on regulatory compliance, investigations, adjudication, enforcement, and prosecutions.
Imogen Roberts is an associate in Kingsley Napley’s Regulatory team. She advises regulated professionals and entities, primarily in the legal sector, on regulatory compliance, investigations, adjudication and enforcement.
Serious complaints made to chambers, especially those involving bullying, harassment or discrimination, can present serious legal, reputational and operational challenges. An effective response will be prompt, compliant with Bar Standards Board (BSB) regulations and guidance, protective of individual rights, and managed fairly, effectively and with sensitivity to all those involved. Chambers need to react quickly, but within the constraints of any relevant employment, regulatory and data protection law considerations, and in the context of the commercial and reputational implications that often arise when such complaints are made and investigated.*
This article is a best practice guide as to how chambers might wish to approach the handling of serious complaints of misconduct. This will be particularly pertinent for chambers following the recent publication of the Harman Report.
In the often critical, first few hours following the receipt of a serious complaint, chambers need to be prepared, to avoid the situation where they are scrambling to make decisions without a proper framework. Ideally, a complaint should trigger the implementation of steps set out in a pre-established crisis management plan. The plan will identify the individuals responsible for managing the response, and this ‘core group’ will be composed of a small number of senior decision makers who are trusted and importantly, trained, to run the process.
The plan should define when external legal advice ought to be sought and who will form the client group in such circumstances. A clearly identified client group makes any later assertion of legal professional privilege that much stronger, should this be challenged in court or by a regulator.
At the outset, and throughout, chambers should assess what kind of legal, HR, PR or other strategic advice they might need. Depending on the nature of the complaint, this may include the following areas:
While using in-house expertise may reduce cost, it necessarily widens the circle of individuals with sensitive knowledge and can impact working relationships. Chambers will need to strike the right balance based on the nature, complexity, and sensitivity of the complaint.
Every investigation ought to begin with a clear understanding of chambers’ priorities. These typically include maintaining confidentiality, protecting the legal rights of all parties and ensuring that the process is compliant and scrupulously fair. It is worth noting that the Harman Report recommended that chambers policy frameworks should be backed up by a constitution that requires members and employees to comply with policies, procedures and decisions as to sanctions.
Chambers should then identify which internal policies are relevant to the resolution of the complaint and ensure that the processes set out in those polices are followed. These may include:
Care should be taken in determining whether the matter falls under a whistleblowing framework, formal grievance, or disciplinary route and external standards such as the BSB Handbook (and see the Bar Council Guidance on Conducting an Investigation in Chambers for a more expansive summary of what is required) and Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) guidance should also be considered.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance on protected characteristics will also assist where there are allegations of discrimination. Pupil supervisors and chambers’ equality and diversity officer should have specific training in relation to this as they will likely be the ones handling initial concerns.
Prompt steps should be taken to preserve any relevant digital records, such as emails, social media messages, or CCTV footage.
When criminal conduct is alleged and a police investigation underway or anticipated, chambers may still carry out its own internal investigation. The courts (e.g., North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust v Dr Andrew Gregg [2019] EWCA Civ 387) have confirmed that internal disciplinary processes can proceed concurrently with police investigations unless doing so risks a miscarriage of justice.
In such cases, however, chambers will want to ensure that they do not prejudice or otherwise negatively impact the police investigation and are advised to:
These measures will help to protect the integrity of both the internal and potential criminal investigations.
Chambers may need to access electronic data held on devices as part of its investigation (e.g. WhatsApp messages). Chambers should have robust data access and privacy clauses in its policies that clarify the circumstances in which devices may be accessed, the scope of the access and how chambers may require cooperation from members in providing information. In principle, chambers can access personal devices as part of its investigation, but this must be made explicit in its policies.
All parties in an investigation, the complainant, the respondent and the witnesses, have important legal rights that must be respected. For instance:
Thus, all communications during the currency of an investigation should be made with these various rights in mind. Even inadvertent confirmations of an ongoing investigation can lead to defamation claims, such as those seen in the Cliff Richard and XYZ cases, in which the right to privacy during police investigations, up to the point of charge, was affirmed.
As such, information sharing should be minimised and undertaken on a strictly ‘need-to-know basis’. Consideration should be given to the use of ciphers in any written material produced and material should be securely stored with passwords and other measures designed to prevent access.
Chambers should also be mindful of vicarious liability risks from individuals who share or republish defamatory or private material. As chambers may be held responsible for the republication of damaging information by its employees, the fewer people that know about it, the better.
Chambers should prepare, at the outset, for the (however remote) possibility that details of the complaint may become public through leaks, regulatory disclosures, civil claims (e.g. for discrimination or personal injury) or tribunal proceedings. This may be a simple as ensuring that everyone in the clerks’ room knows who the appointed spokesperson is, should the press contact chambers. At the other end of the spectrum, in cases where press interest could be significant, it may extend to appointing a PR expert. All external communication involving the press must be cautious in the extreme and any responses given should be short and factual, if any response is indicated at all.
Any investigation undertaken by chambers must be:
Care should be taken where pupils or junior tenants are involved. Bar Council guidance recommends that where appropriate, pupils be offered alternative supervision and reassurances about tenancy prospects, to encourage openness.
If new allegations arise during the process, they should be added to the investigation (if related) without restarting it. The key point is to ensure that all allegations are eventually put to the respondent with the opportunity given to respond.
Decisions about the cross sharing of evidence (say the complaint’s account with the respondent and vice versa), will need to be made early on, so that the expectations of relevant parties are met; there is no set rule about what fairness requires here, it will depend on the nature of the complaint.
Given that most chambers are unregulated, the BSB reporting obligation will often fall on the barrister members involved in the investigation, or the Head or Heads of Chambers. The obligation is to report promptly to the BSB where there are reasonable grounds to believe that another person (regulated by the BSB) has committed serious misconduct. The barrister members involved in the investigation will need to consider if they are under a duty to report to the BSB. In some circumstances, it may be appropriate to wait until the investigation has concluded before reporting: the BSB guidance on reporting is a valuable tool here. It might be appropriate in the first instance to make a report without naming one, or indeed both, of the parties involved, particularly if the complainant has not agreed to such a report being made.
Once the investigation is complete, if a BSB report has not already been made, chambers should finally determine whether to report to the BSB and what information to share. Consideration will need to be given as to whether any final report produced is privileged, before it is shared.
As well as providing information to the BSB, Chambers may need to respond to requests to disclose investigation materials under data subject access requests (DSARs). Good record keeping and clarity on privilege from the start are critical to navigating these requests. The safest approach throughout an investigation is to assume that all material produced in the currency of the investigation may later become disclosable.
Following misconduct investigations, new challenges arise, especially if both parties remain in chambers. Chambers will need to:
Chambers will need to guard against victimisation claims. For example, it is possible that the complainant will not want to return to work if the accused is still there. In this circumstance, thought should be given to limiting the extent of interaction between them. Chambers may also be exposed to a constructive (unfair) dismissal claim if an employee complainant resigns in circumstances where they feel they have been left with no other choice. Equally, it may be difficult for the accused to continue to work in chambers, particularly if people they work with have been witnesses in the investigation. Chambers sits between the complainant and the accused and should remain neutral in devising solutions to such issues.
Chambers will also want to look ahead. Lessons learnt from the investigation should inform updates to policies and training. A strong ‘speak-up’ culture, underpinned by clear behavioural expectations, is the best long-term safeguard against recurrence.
Handling serious complaints of misconduct in chambers can be challenging. With early planning, and careful deployment of the (fair and compliant) process established, chambers will be well placed to manage such complaints fairly, supporting all parties involved while protecting the values and ultimately, the reputation of the organisation.
The BSB Handbook and bullying and harassment information page
The Harman Report: Independent review of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment at the Bar, 8 September 2025
Conducting an Investigation in Chambers – Bar Council – Practice & Ethics
Reporting serious misconduct – BSB
Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance on protected characteristics
Justice system requires urgent attention and next steps on the Harman Review
Q&A with Tim Lynch of Jordan Lynch Private Finance
By Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Why Virtual Assistants Can Meet the Legal Profession’s Exacting Standards
Despite increased awareness, why are AI hallucinations continuing to infiltrate court cases at an alarming rate? Matthew Lee investigates
Many disabled barristers face entrenched obstacles to KC appointment – both procedural and systemic, writes Diego F Soto-Miranda
The proscribing of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act is an assault on the English language and on civil liberties, argues Paul Harris SC, founder of the Bar Human Rights Committee
For over three decades, the Bar Mock Trial Competition has boosted the skills, knowledge and confidence of tens of thousands of state school students – as sixth-form teacher Conor Duffy and Young Citizens’ Akasa Pradhan report
Suzie Miller’s latest play puts the legal system centre stage once more. Will it galvanise change? asks Rehna Azim
