The Bar Standards Board Anmeldelser 

I am a director of IRAMA Pte Ltd and have personally dealt with the Bar Standards Board (BSB) concerning serious professional-conduct complaints about three individuals involved in litigation against our company.

My experience has left me deeply disappointed in the regulator's complaint-handling process and concerned about how members of the public can obtain meaningful scrutiny of barristers' conduct. Hugh Miall, Jessica Lavelle and Darren Malone.

**The complaints and supporting evidence**

My complaints concerned Hugh Miall (2025/3736), Jessica Lavelle (2025/3735) and Darren Malone (2025/3734).

The underlying litigation involved a disputed insolvency set-off, rent arrears and allegations about an agreement concerning scaffolding hire.

Gateley Legal, acting for insolvency office-holders, had written to the opposing solicitors on 29 January, 8 February and 8 September 2021 disputing important factual assertions, including the alleged agreement and supporting creditor position.

Despite that correspondence, related arguments continued to feature in subsequent court proceedings.

My central question to the BSB was not simply whether these barristers had advanced arguments against our company. It was whether the regulator had properly established what each barrister knew about the contradictory material, when they knew it, and whether the courts were given an accurate picture.

**The three barristers**

Hugh Miall's skeleton argument of 19 June 2024 was one of the documents I asked the BSB to examine. I wanted to know whether the earlier Gateley correspondence had been included in his instructions or hearing bundle.

Jessica Lavelle's skeleton argument was dated 3 April 2025. On 4 April 2025, material concerning the Gateley letters was served on her instructing solicitors, before the hearing on 7 April. I asked whether that material was passed to her before the hearing and how it was addressed.

In Darren Malone's case, I raised questions about his professional authorisation, court-facing work and involvement in the litigation. I asked the BSB to investigate his activities individually and by date.

These were questions requiring examination of documents, instructions, dates and professional responsibilities. They were not allegations that an adverse court result itself established misconduct.

**The BSB's handling**

The BSB acknowledged the three reports submitted in December 2025 and subsequently confirmed the individual case references.

All three complaints were closed in March 2026.

One particularly disappointing detail was that the closure correspondence concerning Hugh Miall used female pronouns, it added to my concern about the care taken with individual complaints.

**What I believe the regulator should explain**

I wanted a clear, evidence-based explanation of whether the BSB had examined the relevant barristers' instructions, briefs, electronic bundles and communications with their instructing solicitors.

I also wanted to understand how it distinguished between a barrister advancing a disputed case in good faith and a barrister knowingly or improperly presenting an inaccurate factual picture.

I did not receive answers that satisfied me on those central issues.

**My conclusion**

Regulatory accountability matters particularly where litigants in person are trying to raise concerns about the conduct of experienced legal professionals. I believe the public should be able to see how such complaints are investigated and why particular evidence does or does not justify further action.

I hope the BSB will provide fuller explanations of the specific investigative steps taken in these cases and improve the transparency of its complaint-handling process.

Do not trust them to be fair. My barrister failed to keep notes of our meeting. So not only did they not find that concerning they also said they cant just beleive my word/notes. WTF!

In my experience, the Bar Standards Board is opaque, defensive and unwilling to engage properly with complaints about barrister competence.

I submitted a detailed documentary complaint concerning a barrister’s handling of serious regulatory proceedings. The issues were not mere dissatisfaction with outcome or strategy. They concerned competence, instructions, impairment advice, failure to preserve forensic points, and withdrawal.

The BSB’s response was that it could not identify any potential Handbook breach. In my view, that is not analysis. It is assertion. The BSB did not explain which Handbook duties were considered or why the conduct was not even capable of raising a regulatory concern.

The process gave me the impression of a regulator more interested in insulating barristers from scrutiny than providing transparent accountability.

I complained against a staff member of the BSB and their handling of a complaint and the biased and unfair investigation which did not invite a response from the person against whom the complaint was made. They made a finding against that person without that person even knowing about the allegation. Can you imagine any court of law or tribunal where an investigation against a person is conducted without their knowledge and a finding is made without their knowledge and no notice is given even afterwards so that the person concerned could have taken action. It was all kept in secret. When the person concerned found out 4 years later and complained - they refused to progress the complaint. Therefore, they are ineffective, unfair and will not observe basic rules of natural justice when it involves one of their staff members

The BSB are not independent but very biased in favour for their members but displaying they are there to help you act against a Barrister who does not comply with their standards which is totally false and misleading as they do not care about the public as they advertise on their site .
We submitted a comprehensive complaint to the BSB regarding the inappropriate behaviour from a Barrister membe providing evidence they have chosen to ignore the facts

They took rather a long time responding which obviously is always a negative response in favour of their members offering full protection they protect their own with a vengeance and are not independent as they claim
by other reviews it confirms that BSB are not worthy and not fit and

should disband in shame with the unmeasurable stress they put on unsuspecting customers with genuine complaints not aware of the BSB total commitment to protecting their paid up members .This situation needs to be exposed to the public and the authorities who are responsible for their investigations that are totally inadequate and incompetent and completely misguided and misleading but always bias to their members that pay a fee for comprehensive protection from unhappy clients normally justified but never acknowledged by the BSB for obvious reasons save our Barrister at all costs no matter what they have done .
The so called BSB needs to be investigated and punished and dismantled ASAP and replaced by a competent independent work force that upholds the rule of law,human rights and the client care instead of covering up the so called Barristers serious and serial unlawful practices which might then restore some credibility back to the BSB which has been completely destroyed, compromised and lost with all this corruption.
I

They protect their own even if their own drive people to sudice attempts

The so called BSB needs to be dismantled and replaced by an independent work force that upholds the rule of law, human rights and the client care instead of covering up the so called Barristers serial and serious unlawful practices.

Untouchable.
It is disheartening to witness barristers off record advising solicitors to avoid cases involving mental health. This sort of thing has gone on for years, they are essentially denying individuals with mental health disabilities the right to fair representation. This discouragement perpetuates the stigma surrounding mental health and further marginalizes those who require legal assistance.
In an attempt to evade culpability for serious legal errors, it is easy for barristers to resort to ensuring that victims of the errors are not taken seriously. This deplorable practice involves manipulating situations to protect their reputation rather than serving justice. By avoiding accountability, these barristers contribute to a system that fails those in need. Whistle blowers needed.

The Legal System is wholly set up to take advantage of consumers. It is no better and much worse than the PPI scandal. The Legal Ombudsman have no empathy and the only way through to the Bar is through them for a hard working consumer like our family who are open to systematic abuse from Barristers. Never do direct access with a barrister as they are purely out to rip you off. Me and my family are suffering incredibly bad mental health issues, received welfare checks and still our barrister is a law unto himself and allowed to get away with breaking every code possible without anyone monitoring him. Our next stop is the police I think as we have run out of options.

The BSB are not independent but biased in favour for their members. They do not care about the public as they claim.
I submitted a comprehensive complaint to the BSB regarding the behaviour of a barrister. Despite proving evidence they have chosen to ignore the facts and protect their member. They took nearly six months to respond. In short, they protect their own and are not independent as they claim. Judging by other people experience it would seem that the BSB are not worthy. They should dispand in shame. Better still be held to account.

Given clear evidence if malpractice, disregard for the rule of law, disregard for court directions, attempts to exhort monies under false pretenses, litigating without license. They handed the complaint to the accused barristers, who returned again on a malfeaseant claim to the queen's bench, no notice seeking imprisonment. The whole profession is disreputable.

you tube where's walshy i have posted a video about the criminal activity of paul staines under the title of axa guido fawkes . The bar standards are fully aware of the involvement of the barrister simon edwards and are perverting the course of justice by concealing his involvement in 4 indictable only offences

The BSB’s Assessment Officer’s Decision Letter of 28th October 2020 concluded with the following:-

‘We appreciate that this may not be the response which you had expected from us. It may help if we explain that the BSB is a public interest regulator operating a risk-based approach to regulation. This means we act in the public interest rather than the interests of those we regulate or in the private interests of individuals who report their concerns to us. We have to direct our resources to the areas of greatest risk to the public interest and high-risk issues are given priority. When considering information provided to us concerning the conduct of a barrister we have to consider the issues raised in this context…. Although we are not taking further action at this time, your information is very important to us. It can be used, with reports from other sources, to identify trends and patterns of behaviour….’

Not content with the outcome of the assessment I issued a formal complaint in a letter (via email) to the BSB’s Director General, Mark Neale, dated 24th November 2020. Mr Neale promptly assured me that my complaint would be considered, and so it was.

In a 5 ½ page letter (largely outlining what I already knew about our complaint) dated 19th January 2021 the Head of Conduct Assessment wrote:-

‘The Independent Reviewer (IR) has recommended that the original decision to dismiss your case should be confirmed, and this matter will therefore remain closed… She appreciated that you considered the Barrister’s remarks about you and your wife disparaging. However, the Barrister was under a duty to promote her client’s case and the IR considered that putting forward arguments about the strength of a claim … even in trenchant terms – would not in itself amount to a breach of the Handbook…. There was nothing to suggest that (name deleted) had misled or attempted to mislead the court in continuing to advance her arguments, and nothing to suggest she was in breach of rC9.2 or any other provision of the Handbook in this respect. The IR therefore considered that the BSB’s conclusion on this issue was reasonable and appropriate.’

The letter concluded with the following odd message, particularly for those thinking of raising concerns with the BSB about members of the Bar:-

‘Even where, as here, a report does not lead to further action being taken, it is important for the BSB to receive information about concerns as this can lead to trends being identified which assist in the overall regulation of the profession and we are grateful to you for taking the time to write to us.’

A corrupt entity that fails to enforce the standards, core duties and laws it purports to regulate. The Bar is effectively completely unregulated and these clowns at the Bar Standards Board just waste people's time because they do not investigate complaints, they are there only to protect their own.

What use is a regulator that doesn't regulate?

See the video, Google "Bar (non) Standards Board"

ON MY YOU TUBE CHANNEL WHERE'S WALSHY I GO INTO DETAIL ABOUT THE REGULATED SIMON EDWARDS AND THE PROTECTION THE BAR STANDARDS BOARD ARE GIVING TO HIM DESPITE CRIMINAL OFFENCES BEING ALLEGED

The Bar Standards Board is an organisation created by the legal profession to cover up the criminal activity of its members. My defence barrister systematically robbed me of around £40,000 in fees on the false pretence of defending me and then perverted the course of justice to help a fraudster cheat me out of a £500,000 investment.He presented to a judge as genuine, documents, accounts and witness statements which he knew had been faked by the claimant and failed to present one iota of my defence. He then invented an imaginary law and convinced me I would lose a case on the basis of a law which does not exist. As a result of this, I handed over valuable shares to a fraudster. When I complained to his chambers, he was exonerated on the basis of some documents he supposedly provided however when I asked to see them, I was told they did not possess them as they had since been stolen from his car. I asked the BSB for advice on what would be a breach of their code of conduct for example, lying to a judge, presenting knowingly fake evidence to a judge as genuine, inventing imaginary laws and withholding evidence from the court. I was told that there is nobody working at the Bar Standards Board who knew how to identify misconduct, negligence or malpractice so there was nothing they could do. Please don't make the mistake I did in thinking that legal regulators are there to protect users of legal services. They are not.They are there solely to protect legal professionals.

They claim to regulate in the public interest but are far too biased in favour of the barrister. Their code of conduct talks of all those duties barristers have to the Court, to other parties and so on. Yet when you complain about a barrister suddenly all that matters is the duty to their client and any lies are somehow never the barrister's fault just representing what their client genuinely believes of course.