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

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll