Skip to main content

Barristers, Conflicts of Interests and the Family Courts

I have been having a debate with various Family Court barristers as to what the rules are in respect of a barrister taking on a case for a parent when they previously have taken on a case for the local authority the parent is facing in the court.

The rules on the Bar Standards Board website are difficult to link to clearly. The basic rules can be found from here.

The relevant rule is:
rC21 You must not accept instructions to act in a particular matter if:

-3. there is a conflict of interest between the prospective client and one or more of your former or existing clients in respect of the particular matter unless all of the clients who have an interest in the particular matter give their informed consent to your acting in such circumstances; or


If, therefore, we consider the case of a barrister considering whether they should accept instructions to act for a parent Mr Smith against the Huntingdonshire County Council. This particular barrister had earlier acted for Huntingdonshire against Mr & Mrs Jones.

It is clear that Huntingdonshire is either a former or existing client. It is also clear that there is a conflict of interest between Mr Smith and Huntingdonshire in the "particular matter".

Hence the barrister should not accept the instruction: unless all of the clients who have an interest in the particular matter give their informed consent to your acting in such circumstances;

I don't think there is anything unclear about this. It is clearly the case that this rule is not being followed properly for family proceedings quite frequently, however.

The rules for solicitors are easier to find here are are quite similar. (As they should be).

Update 16/05/16

I have now spoken to the Bar Standards Council. It is clear that there is some lack of clarity in the wording of rule -3. It would be clearer if it said: -3. If you have clients or former clients in respect of the particular matter and there is a conflict of interest between the prospective client and those former or existing clients in respect of the particular matter unless all of the clients who have an interest in the particular matter give their informed consent to your acting in such circumstances; or

or

-3. there is a conflict of interest in respect of the particular matter between the prospective client and one or more of your former or existing clients unless all of the clients who have an interest in the particular matter give their informed consent to your acting in such circumstances; or


Either of those draftings is clear. The current drafting does not make it clear that it is only clients or former clients relating to the same matter as that for which someone is requesting someone to act.

I think the BSB are working on the narrow definition of the rule. It must be very rare that this happens. That, however, in my view means that the rule needs to be changed. It is not equality of arms for someone to unknowingly instruct someone to represent them who is effectively on a retainer to the other party. It does, of course, depend substantially, but not entirely on the volume of instructions that someone gets from the other party. I don't personally think that permission is needed from former clients for a barrister to be instructed to act against them. However, there really does have to be transparency to the prospective client as to how dependent, both their solicitor and their barrister is on funding from another party to the case.

From the perspective of someone external to the system the drafting of the rule looks OK, but that is only because of the uncertainty. This is an issue I will continue working on.

Comments

jonathanj said…
Oh rubbish! "In the particular matter..." The Smith case is one particular, the Jones case is a different one. No conflict, obviously.
Jaime Hamilton said…
The position that you adopt here about conflict is so spectacularly ill informed and contrary to (i) common sense and (ii) an ordinary construction of the English language that it defies belief. The conflict is not about having been instructed previously by one of the other parties, it is about a conflict in the particular matter. Those words are there for a reason. If the rule was that informed consent was needed if you had been instructed on behalf of the public body in the other side previously then that is all the rule would have to say. Yet it talks about conflict in the particular matter. Now, what is it that you identify as the conflict in a particular matter just by reason of the fact that I have previously been instructed by the CPS who now prosecute my current client?
John Hemming said…
Obviously we have a disagreement. I have contacted the BSB for clarification and will probably get in touch with the SRA at some stage.
C Richardson said…
A conflict of interest does not arise simply through the representation of one party.

Here is how I explain conflict to lay people as it can seem a little esoteric. The 'conflict' arises, certainly in the case of a solicitor, usually, through the operation of two core duties. The duty of confidentiality (i.e, the responsibility to keep any and all matters discussed with you by a client confidential) and the duty of disclosure (the duty to disclose all pertinent matters to a client to enable them to make informed decisions and give instructions). There are other duties which may conflict, like the duty not to mislead the court and the duty of confidentiality. (this is more often a part of the answer to the question, "how can you represent someone you know is guilty".

If a solicitor or barrister represents Huntingdon in case X they will have information which is confidential to case X. If the information about case is X children is not pertinent to case Y there is no duty to disclose it in case Y and there is no conflict. Of course, it in the course of representing X I became aware of poor practice in, say, the actions of a social worker and the same social worker was assessing the children in Y, I can quite easily see a conflict arising and I would stop acting.

Any lawyer must be continually aware of the risk of conflict arising at the outset, during, and at the conclusion of a matter.

I would be quite happy to talk to you about it more, with regard to the SRA rules, if you would find it useful. In the alternative, you might like to contact the Ethics helpline which is operated by the Law Society

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/support-services/ethics/
Jaime Hamilton said…
So, in summary, you were totally wrong. And now you have been told you are wrong (without explicitly accepting that what you were being told by everyone was right) your response is that the rule is wrong. You want the rule to say what you wanted it to say but did not.

A clear example of bias. And a clear example, perhaps, of a conflict of interest. Your bias prevents you viewing such things objectively.
Lucy Reed said…
I have written about this here : http://www.pinktape.co.uk/representation/is-it-ok-to-be-represented-by-a-barrister-who-sometimes-acts-for-social-services/

In the interests of open discussion John I am sure you will publish the link to this alternative view on your comment thread so that people can make an informed decision about the topic before making decisions about their legal representation.

Lucy

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…