David Owusu Yianoma v Bar Standards Board

7 November 2023

[2023] EWHC 2785 (Admin)

High Court

A lawyer made a mistake in a case, and a judge initially gave him a year-long suspension from practicing law. Another judge reviewed the case and decided that a six-month suspension was more appropriate because the lawyer admitted his error, the mistake was a one-time thing, and he didn't do it for personal gain.

Key Facts

•David Owusu-Yianoma (Appellant) was a practicing barrister.
•The Bar Standards Board (BSB, Respondent) brought regulatory proceedings against the Appellant.
•The Bar Tribunals & Adjudication Service (BTAS) found the Appellant guilty of three charges of professional misconduct: recklessly misleading the court by failing to comply with McCook obligations (Charges 1 & 3) and failing to take reasonable steps to avoid wasting court time (Charge 7).
•The Appellant admitted to recklessness but denied knowingly misleading the court.
•The BTAS imposed a 12-month suspension from practice.
•The Appellant appealed against the sanction, arguing it was too harsh.
•The Appellant acted pro bono and under time pressure.
•The Appellant relied on a non-legally qualified intermediary to communicate with previous counsel.
•The Appellant's actions led to the Court of Appeal having to investigate an unmeritorious appeal and resulted in the waste of judicial resources.
•The Appellant's evidence contained inconsistencies

Legal Principles

McCook obligations: Fresh counsel must consult previous counsel/solicitors to ensure factual accuracy in appeals, unless exceptional circumstances exist.

R v McCook [2014] EWCA 734

Core Duty 1 of the Code of Conduct: Barristers must observe their duty to the court in the administration of justice.

Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales

Rule C3.3 of the Code of Conduct: Barristers must take reasonable steps to avoid wasting the court's time.

Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales

Appeals against disciplinary tribunals are by way of review, not rehearing. The court should accord deference to the tribunal's evaluative decisions on sanction unless there is an error of principle or the decision is outside the bounds of what was reasonably decidable.

Bar Standards Board v Stephen Howd [2017] EWHC 210 (Admin); Bawa-Garba v The General Medical Council [2018] EWCA Civ 1879; Hewson v Bar Standards Board [2021] EWHC 28 (Admin)

In appeals concerning sanctions, the court will interfere only if the sanction is 'clearly inappropriate'.

Salsbury v Law Society [2008] EWCA Civ 1285

Outcomes

The Tribunal's 12-month suspension was varied to a 6-month suspension.

The Tribunal failed to give sufficient weight to the Appellant's admissions, the isolated nature of the misconduct, and the lack of personal gain. The Court considered the culpability to be moderate, placing the misconduct in the middle range of seriousness rather than the upper range as determined by the Tribunal. A 6-month suspension was deemed sufficient to fulfill the purpose of sanctions in this case.

David Owusu Yianoma v Bar Standards Board

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

Timothy Raggatt v Bar Standards Board

Peter John Wareing v Bar Standards Board

General Legal Council v Michael Lorne (Jamaica)

Farrukh Abbas v Solicitors' Regulatory Authority

Professional Standards Authority for Health And Social Care v Nursing and Midwifery Council & Anor