A High Court decision has reinforced the disbarment of a barrister found to have improperly continued legal practice while under suspension.
The High Court has endorsed the decision to disbar a barrister, Peter Wareing, for continuing to represent himself as a legal practitioner during a suspension period. Mr Justice Kerr commented, “I am sorry to say I agree with the tribunal that [Peter] Wareing is not fit to be a member of the barrister’s profession.”
Peter Wareing, initially called to the bar in 2004, completed his pupillage in 2013. Despite his disbarment in May, details remained unpublished pending his appeal. This decision follows several run-ins with the Bar disciplinary tribunal, including a six-month suspension beginning July 2021, during which Wareing allegedly managed five cases. Preceding this period, he sought clarification from the Bar Standards Board (BSB) if he could operate as a solicitor’s agent, to which the BSB deferred to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The BSB made it clear that a suspended barrister could not hold themselves out as practising or offering legal services or describe themselves as a barrister without revealing their suspension.
The tribunal concluded that Wareing attempted to persist in a guise as an active barrister and improperly assumed the role of a ‘solicitor’s agent’. This led to non-disclosure of his suspended status to his clients and courts, who uncovered his suspension independently. The tribunal rejected Wareing’s defence, which claimed BSB approval for his conduct, highlighting that the BSB provided no such assurance.
The findings indicated Wareing demonstrated a lack of integrity and dented public trust by misrepresenting his qualifications in four out of five cases. He accepted public access work without proper credentials in three cases and engaged in reserved legal activities when unauthorised in two instances. However, he was cleared of acting dishonestly and representing himself as a barrister during his suspension.
In the disbarment proceedings, each breach was deemed enough to justify further suspension, especially given Wareing’s history of prior disciplinary issues. Wareing’s appeal argued that the tribunal should have acknowledged his reliance on perceived permissions from the BSB. However, Justice Kerr noted the absence of any indication from the BSB facilitating Wareing’s role as a solicitor’s agent. Kerr explained that although certain actions, such as acting as a solicitor’s agent, were not direct breaches, Wareing’s overall conduct was unjustified.
Justice Kerr concluded that Wareing attempted to bypass his suspension intentionally, coupled with a poor disciplinary record and a lack of engagement with the disciplinary process. Therefore, the tribunal’s choice to escalate the severity of the sanction beyond a typical 12-month suspension was warranted. Wareing’s disengagement from scheduling the hearing dates accurately also reflected poorly, leading the tribunal to proceed in his absence. Kerr found the tribunal’s handling of the case and its outcomes faultless, stating, “Mr Wareing’s head was in the sand in relation to fixing dates.”
The High Court’s affirmation of Peter Wareing’s disbarment underscores the importance of adhering to professional standards and integrity within the legal profession.
