header-logo header-logo

Ryan Beckwith appeal ruling 'significant'

30 November 2020
Issue: 7913 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Disciplinary&grievance procedures
printer mail-detail
Former Magic Circle partner Ryan Beckwith’s successful appeal against a finding of misconduct has clarified the extent to which professional regulators can reach into a lawyer’s private life

In a ruling last week, in Beckwith v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2020] EWHC 3231 (Admin), the High Court overturned the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s ruling that Beckwith failed to act with integrity and brought the profession into disrepute.

The claims against the former Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer insurance partner concerned alleged sexual activity in July 2016 with a junior female colleague who was ‘heavily intoxicated to the extent that she was vulnerable and/or her judgment and decision-making ability was impaired’. Beckwith was alleged to have breached Principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Handbook.

However, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division and Mr Justice Swift held: ‘Principle 2 or Principle 6 may reach into private life only when conduct that is part of a person's private life realistically touches on her practise of the profession…or the standing of the profession…Any such conduct must be qualitatively relevant.’

They warned: ‘Regulators will do well to recognise that it is all too easy to be dogmatic without knowing it; popular outcry is not proof that a particular set of events gives rise to any matter falling within a regulator's remit.’

They quashed the tribunal’s order that Beckwith pay a fine of £35,000 and set aside the ‘alarming’ £200,000 costs order.

John Gould, partner, Russell-Cooke, said: ‘This is a very significant judgment not just for the approach to inappropriate behaviour outside of practice but also more generally.

‘It lets air into a longstanding conceptual vacuum in which identifying what should properly concern regulators is obscured by popular outcry and circular concepts such as undermining public confidence. It pulls the assessment of conduct back to seriousness and demonstrable relevance to practice. 

‘Abuse of power is relevant but simply behaving “inappropriately” is not. Misconduct must be referrable to the rule book not to the free-floating views of regulators or tribunals. The conceptual framework is not finished but this is a solid start.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll