A direct access barrister has been suspended for mishandling client funds during a divorce settlement after his appeal was rejected.
Wayne Lewis, a barrister specialising in direct professional access work, has been suspended for 18 months following a disciplinary tribunal’s findings. The case became public after the High Court rejected Mr. Lewis’s appeal against both the tribunal’s conclusions and the sanctions imposed.
Mr. Lewis was involved in handling the financial proceeds from the sale of a matrimonial home for his client, identified as ‘KW,’ in a divorce case. Under a damages-based agreement, Lewis was entitled to 15% of the recovered amount, translating to £52,950 from the total £322,989. However, issues arose when he failed to properly return the remaining sum to his client.
The tribunal detailed that he transferred £250,000 to his personal account and failed to promptly repay KW, leaving an outstanding balance of £17,539, which was only cleared after a prolonged period of almost four years. During this time, Mr. Lewis offered numerous excuses to both his client and the Legal Ombudsman for the delay in repayment.
Despite acknowledging in a witness statement that he was neither qualified to perform conveyancing work nor authorised to manage client money, Mr. Lewis justified his actions by expressing concerns over securing payment for his services. He claimed that holding back part of the sales proceeds was the only assurance against not being compensated for his work.
The tribunal found all five charges against Mr. Lewis substantiated, including failure to issue a client-care letter, improper handling of client funds, unauthorised financial transactions, delayed repayments, and misleading communications with the ombudsman. Justice Ritchie highlighted the barrister’s lack of credibility, noting his evasiveness and reluctance to accept responsibility for his duties.
In light of Mr. Lewis’s extensive 40-year career and the fact that the misconduct involved a single client, the tribunal’s decision to suspend him was tempered by concern over potential recurrences with future clients. The tribunal also barred him from engaging in direct access work until he completes necessary training upon resuming practice.
Mr. Lewis attempted to challenge the demands for a client-care letter, arguing vagueness and that the charges lacked specific dates. He also tried to place accountability on his company, Wayne Lewis Ltd. However, Ritchie J clarified that evidence showed Mr. Lewis personally controlled KW’s funds, which invalidated his defence.
The judge concurred with the tribunal’s decision that misusing a substantial sum of a vulnerable client at a critical time was severe misconduct. The tribunal further criticised Mr. Lewis for mixing client funds with his company’s finances and failing to adequately explain his use of £38,000 from the client’s funds.
Despite considering Mr. Lewis’s age, extensive experience, and previously clean record as mitigating factors, the tribunal identified ongoing risks associated with his direct access work, which lacks protective measures offered by other regulated legal practitioners. The 18-month suspension was deemed justified, and the appeal was dismissed.
The tribunal’s decision to suspend Wayne Lewis underscores the seriousness with which regulatory bodies view the safeguarding of client funds. His case serves as a reminder of the ethical responsibilities inherent in legal practice, with the potential for severe personal and professional consequences if these duties are neglected.
