Emails: Barrister needs “re-education”
A barrister who should have learnt from a previous disciplinary offence that his rudeness “demeans” himself and could damage “the Bar as a whole” has been fined.
A Bar disciplinary tribunal recounted that, in an email to a client who had complained to the Legal Ombudsman (LeO), Timothy Becker described LeO’s decision as “perverse in the extreme” and accused the caseworker of having “an agenda” against him.
Having received a court order for not paying the fee refund ordered by LeO, Mr Becker sent an email in which he threatened to take legal action against the former client to recover his fees.
The barrister was reprimanded and fined £750 in 2020 [1] for suggesting, in an email to the other side, that a female Asian judge only secured her position as a result of positive discrimination.
While Mr Becker’s KC “with ingenuity pointed to a number of differences” between the two matters, the tribunal said there were “a number of significant similarities, and we regard this as a worrying aspect”.
It went on: “We would have expected him to learn from the previous matter that rudeness demeans not only the respondent himself but that it also is likely to injure the [reputation of] the Bar as a whole”.
Along with the fine, there needed to be “some form of re-education” for Mr Becker, who was required to attend, by the end of this year, a client-care course and an online course run by the Bar Council on tackling harassment, bullying and inappropriate behaviour.
The tribunal heard that Mr Becker acted for the client on a direct access basis and attended a hearing relating to a mortgage where the district judge refused his client’s application for leave to appeal against an earlier order.
The former client was not happy and complained to LeO, which ordered Mr Becker to repay the “modest fee” he had charged.
The tribunal said the barrister “was in financial difficulties at the time” and asked LeO if he could repay the fee by instalments of £500. “Unfortunately (and without giving any proper explanation) the sums were not paid as they should have been.”
The last payment was only made after LeO obtained a county court order.
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) alleged that Mr Becker had acted without integrity but the tribunal rejected this.
“We accept that the respondent has dealt with matters badly but in our unanimous view his conduct falls far short of that which is required to show a lack of integrity.
“It cannot be said that his conduct is morally and ethically blameworthy to the serious degree required by the description.”
The failure to make the payments as agreed damaged public trust and amounted to professional misconduct, however.
The tribunal found Mr Becker also failed to respond to the LeO’s requests of him in a timely manner.
Finally, the barrister behaved in a way which was likely to diminish public trust by sending emails which “taken individually or cumulatively, were unacceptable, insulting or rude in tone”.
In an email to the former client criticising LeO’s decision, he “made unsubstantiated comments, namely that the decision lacks legal merit and is ‘perverse in the extreme’ “, along with “unfounded allegations” that the caseworker’s decision was “based on an agenda the caseworker had against him”.
The tribunal said its findings may have been different had the emails been sent directly to LeO, rather than a lay client.
The tribunal observed that Mr Becker “had been his own worst enemy in that his predicaments could have been promptly courteously and persuasively explained – it is his fault that he failed to do so”.
In his evidence Mr Becker “did not shy away from the rudeness of his emails and told us that he is very sorry”.
He said he was “mortified” to find himself in this position and that he “should have known better”. Although he was in real financial difficulties, he should nonetheless have “prioritised the payments to the client and should have communicated better”.
The extent of his non-compliance had to be balanced by the fact that all the monies were in the end paid.
Though the emails themselves were at the low end of culpability, the previous case was a “very significant aggravating feature”.
The tribunal told Mr Becker that if there was any similar misconduct in future, “it is likely to affect his ability to practise”.
Mr Becker was fined £3,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,870 to the BSB.