Disciplinary tribunal sanctions barrister who ignored BSB for four years


BSB: agreement reached with CPS barrister

BSB: agreement reached with CPS barrister

A barrister who failed to pay a fine and costs imposed by a disciplinary tribunal and then ignored the Bar Standards Board’s (BSB) efforts to contact him for four years, has been suspended from practising.

A new tribunal suspended Tiyani Behanzin, an unregistered barrister who was called in July 2006, for a minimum of 12 months until he pays the outstanding financial orders.

Mr Behanzin did not pay £1,335, imposed for previous disciplinary offences in 2011. These related to holding himself out as a barrister in connection with the provision of legal services, when he did not have a practising certificate.

The BSB sent him letters and e-mails over four years, to which he did not reply, first in relation to a complaint against him, and then in relation to “information required for the purpose of [the BSB’s] regulatory function”, the tribunal said.

The tribunal ordered two 12-month suspensions for the two charges relating to not cooperating with the regulator. The suspension was ordered to remain in place until the outstanding money was paid. The decision is currently open to appeal.

BSB director of professional conduct Sara Jagger said: “Sanctions imposed by the tribunal and correspondence sent by the BSB are to be taken seriously. Mr Behanzin’s refusal to cooperate with his regulator is a serious breach of his duty as a barrister, and the tribunal’s decision to suspend him reflects this.”

Meanwhile, unregistered barrister Angela Hughes has accepted a reprimand from the BSB for providing “false and misleading information in applying for the post of Crown Prosecutor in stating that she fulfilled the necessary qualification for the role when she did not”.

Ms Hughes, who was called in November 2003, was also found to have worked as a Crown Prosecutor for a year to February 2015 “without holding the necessary qualification to carry out that role”.

The case was a ‘determination by consent’, an alternative method of concluding some disciplinary proceedings without needing to go to a tribunal.




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Reports

No larger firm can ignore the demands of innovation – that was the clear message from our most recent roundtable: “The law firm of the future”, sponsored by LexisNexis Enterprise Solutions. It comes in many forms, predominantly but not just technology, and is not simply a case of automating process. Expertise and process are not mutually exclusive.

Blog

10 December 2018
Barbara Hamilton-Bruce LF conf 2018

People change, people deliver

I’ve been in the midst of change for most of my career. Change was the unintended consequence of getting into PI. Change became intentional when I stepped into a senior operational role.

Read More