*/
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has proposed adopting the civil standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings against barristers charged with professional misconduct.
The current standard of proof used is the criminal standard which is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ or ‘satisfied so as to be sure’. But the BSB is seeking views on whether its regulatory arrangements should be changed to allow the civil standard of proof, ‘on the balance of probabilities’ or ‘more likely than not’ to be applied.
The change would bring it in line with other professional regulators, including the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the General Medical Council.
Commenting on the proposal, Chair of the Criminal Bar Association, Francis FitzGibbon QC said: ‘The issue is not an academic one. Anyone who has been involved with Bar disciplinary proceedings knows that the process is agonising and the stakes are high.’
He said: ‘We risk our professional integrity at our peril, and we should not expect the public to respect us if we appear soft on serious misconduct.’
The criminal standard, he said, puts misconduct on a par with actual crime, and marks how seriously it is taken. But, he said: ‘It’s reasonable to ask why so high a standard is needed and why the balance of probabilities does not suffice.’
The consultation, Review of the Standard of Proof Applied in Professional Misconduct Proceedings, closes on 21 July.
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has proposed adopting the civil standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings against barristers charged with professional misconduct.
The current standard of proof used is the criminal standard which is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ or ‘satisfied so as to be sure’. But the BSB is seeking views on whether its regulatory arrangements should be changed to allow the civil standard of proof, ‘on the balance of probabilities’ or ‘more likely than not’ to be applied.
The change would bring it in line with other professional regulators, including the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the General Medical Council.
Commenting on the proposal, Chair of the Criminal Bar Association, Francis FitzGibbon QC said: ‘The issue is not an academic one. Anyone who has been involved with Bar disciplinary proceedings knows that the process is agonising and the stakes are high.’
He said: ‘We risk our professional integrity at our peril, and we should not expect the public to respect us if we appear soft on serious misconduct.’
The criminal standard, he said, puts misconduct on a par with actual crime, and marks how seriously it is taken. But, he said: ‘It’s reasonable to ask why so high a standard is needed and why the balance of probabilities does not suffice.’
The consultation, Review of the Standard of Proof Applied in Professional Misconduct Proceedings, closes on 21 July.
Now is the time to tackle inappropriate behaviour at the Bar as well as extend our reach and collaboration with organisations and individuals at home and abroad
A comparison – Dan Monaghan, Head of DWF Chambers, invites two viewpoints
And if not, why not? asks Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Head of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, discusses the many benefits of oral fluid drug testing for child welfare and protection matters
To mark International Women’s Day, Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management looks at how financial planning can help bridge the gap
Casey Randall of AlphaBiolabs answers some of the most common questions regarding relationship DNA testing for court
Maria Scotland and Niamh Wilkie report from the Bar Council’s 2024 visit to the United Arab Emirates exploring practice development opportunities for the England and Wales family Bar
Marking Neurodiversity Week 2025, an anonymous barrister shares the revelations and emotions from a mid-career diagnosis with a view to encouraging others to find out more
David Wurtzel analyses the outcome of the 2024 silk competition and how it compares with previous years, revealing some striking trends and home truths for the profession
Save for some high-flyers and those who can become commercial arbitrators, it is generally a question of all or nothing but that does not mean moving from hero to zero, says Andrew Hillier
