A lawyer, dual-qualified in law, has received a stiffer penalty from a Bar disciplinary tribunal than from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) following a conviction for assault at the Royal Opera House.
Matthew Adam Feargrieve, convicted of common assault by beating, faced harsher repercussions from the Bar disciplinary tribunal than he did from the Solicitors Regulation Authority. This incident has captured public attention due to the setting and nature of the offence. While the SRA had previously issued a rebuke in 2021, the tribunal decided on a more severe course of action, deciding that the Bar Standards Board (BSB) should not grant him a practising certificate for one year from the hearing date.
Despite being called to the Bar in 1996 and qualifying as a solicitor in 2000, Feargrieve had never completed a pupillage or practised as a barrister, instead working overseas as an investment management consultant. At the centre of the controversy was a confrontation that took place at the Royal Opera House, where the incident unfolded as the victim moved to an empty seat near Feargrieve’s partner. This alteration resulted in the passing back of the victim’s coat, which had been on the seat. Feargrieve responded with what the court described as ‘excessive force’.
Judge John Zani, who presided over the case, commented on the seriousness of Feargrieve’s actions, stating: ‘It is clear in my view that the complainant did suffer pain and discomfort to his shoulder and his ribs. There is little of what I call genuine remorse about what happened. You have lost your good character.’ The judge imposed a fine of £900, ordered compensation of £500 to the victim, along with a £90 victim surcharge and £775 in costs.
Feargrieve initially appealed the decision but subsequently withdrew it, citing financial constraints, a detail noted by the tribunal. His actions during the disciplinary process were seen as uncooperative, as he neither apologised nor presented any insight or remorse. This behaviour, according to the tribunal, significantly damaged the trust and confidence expected by the public in legal professionals.
Additionally, the tribunal mandated that Feargrieve pay the BSB’s costs amounting to £1,560. A spokesperson for the BSB remarked on the duty of barristers to uphold public confidence in the profession, emphasising that Feargrieve’s actions were a clear violation of this duty, resulting in the stringent sanction to reflect the gravity of his conduct.
The tribunal’s decision underscores the importance of maintaining public trust in the legal profession, highlighting the severe consequences of actions that breach this trust.
