0207 407 2356

news
Follow Us

LIBOR developments: The world's most important number

The London Interbank Offered Rate [LIBOR] has resulted in a widespread scandal exposing banks to further criticisms and huge liabilities. It has resulted in vast  fines to banks (Barclays £290m, UBS £940m and RBS £390m) and it is understood that regulators in at least 10 countries are investigating the scandal.   The SFO has been involved since 6th July 2012. In addition various banks are subject to civil actions from private companies and individuals on both sides of the Atlantic. How did it arise and where is it likely to go from here?

The definition of LIBOR and the system itself was quite loose and was open to manipulation when times got tough in the banking sector. The definition was

"At what rate could you borrow funds, were you to do so by asking for and then accepting inter-bank offers in a reasonable market size just prior to 11 am?" This question does not ask what rate they actually paid or even an average of interest rates that they actually paid but it asked rate did they predict they could borrow unsecured funds from other banks in the London wholesale money market in a reasonable market size. The definition relied to a certain extent on the bona fides of the banks and, as has been shown by the investigations carried out by the regulators some individuals in some banks manipulated the rates to assist and profit their traders. In addition, after the Lehman Bros collapse banks just stopped lending to each other compounding the difficulties for the application of the question.

Read more ...

Unacceptable professional conduct defined by Admin Court

In an important decision for Chiropractors and Osteopaths the High Court (Mr Justice Irwin) has ruled over what constitutes "unacceptable professional conduct" for osteopaths. As the Osteopaths Act 1993 is almost identical to the Chiropractors Act 1994 this decision should be equally applicable to chiropractors.  Both Acts use the term "unacceptable professional conduct" and rather unhelpfully define it as conduct  which falls short of the standard required of a registered osteopath or chiropractor. As Mr Justice Irwin suggested this is rather circular.  Both Acts refer to a failure on the part of the professional to comply with the  provisions of the Code of Practice  but also state that  "Where any person is alleged to have failed to comply with any provision of the Code [of Practice], that failure – (a) shall not be taken, of itself, to constitute unacceptable  professional conduct on his part; but  (b) shall be taken into account in any proceedings against him under this Act."

The system of regulation for doctors, dentists and indeed most health regulators has established that the conduct complained of must be serious in view of the damaging consequences on the reputation of a professional person which a disciplinary finding carries. This requirement for the conduct complained of to be "serious" was not always accepted by prosecuting regulators for Chiropractors nor  necessarily by Investigating Committees when deciding whether to refer a case to a Professional Conduct Committee.

Mr Justice Irwin clearly took the view that the definition of "unacceptable professional conduct" carried with it some sense of moral opprobrium He held:-

"The critical term is "conduct". Whichever dictionary definition is consulted, the leading sense of the term "conduct" is behaviour, or the manner of conducting oneself. It seems to me that at first blush this simply does imply, at least to some degree, moral blameworthiness. Whether the finding is "misconduct" or "unacceptable professional conduct", there is in my view an implication of moral blameworthiness, and a degree of opprobrium is likely to be conveyed to the ordinary intelligent citizen. That is an observation not merely about the natural meaning of the language, but about the likely effect of the finding in such a case as this, given the obligatory reporting of the finding under the Act. "

Mr Justice Irwin referred to the consequences for a Registrant of a finding and concluded this elevated the interpretation of "unacceptable professional conduct" to the same level of seriousness as for doctors or dentists - "As it is, the Act stipulates that if unacceptable professional conduct is made out, there has to be at least a formal admonition and publicity which is bound to affect the Registrant's professional reputation. Those are considerable sanctions. In my view, they support the natural meaning of the language contained in the statute and point to a threshold for a finding of "unacceptable professional conduct" which there is no reason to distinguish from "misconduct" in the medical and dental legislation."

The facts in this case related to an admitted failure on the part of Dr Spencer to adequately record the onset of symptoms and examination findings for a patient in his notes. As Mr Justice Irwin found "They [the PCC] were dealing not with one single act of poor performance but two: two examples on two dates, on which proper notes had not been taken. There had been proper assessment of the patient, a proper plan for treatment, proper treatment given. It seems to me that this is not "incompetence or negligence of a high degree" or at least not self evidently so. It seems to me that it is hard to construe these failures as worthy of the moral opprobrium and the publicity which flow from a finding of unacceptable professional conduct. " The finding of unacceptable professional conduct in this case was quashed.

The link to the full judgment in Dr Spencer's case is http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/3147.html. The Law Commission is reporting on health regulation in 2014. One of the areas they are looking at is uniformity of approach across the health care regulators. This decision is to be welcomed for providing consistency of approach and a recognition that "unacceptable professional conduct" carries with it some sense of moral opprobrium on the part of the conduct of the registered health professional.

Professional Disciplinary Law, Fraud Law, Criminal Law: Bankside recognised as "punching above our weight" in Chambers 2013

Bankside Law and its directors have been ranked highly in the leading expert sections of Chambers 2013 legal directory for Professional Disciplinary Lawyers, Fraud lawyers and Criminal Defence Lawyers . Under the leading expert section for Professional Disciplinary Law a client commented on their client care as follows "excellent service on the whole. They're very prompt - when they say they'll do something they do it in a timely fashion."


The firm is recognised again as punching above its weight. John Williams features in Band 1 of the UK wide list of leading experts in Professional Disciplinary Law with the praise that his “name brings forth consistently glowing reviews from interviewees. He's thorough, dependable, innovative and a forward-thinker. He runs a tight ship and has all the right qualities. He is a very committed advocate, a real detail man and provides a "very good service to the client." http://www.chambersandpartners.com/UK/Editorial/72984#per_258709
Jonathan Goldring also features in the list of leading experts in this field and is described as "excellent, personable and quick to get to the core issue."
The firm and Bill Wilson also achieved recognition in the Professional Discipline leading expert section of 2012 Legal 500 Legal Directory as follows “Bankside Law has a niche advising individuals facing investigations and other proceedings brought by regulators. Bill Wilson has been involved in a number of high-profile cases.” http://www.legal500.com/firms/815/offices/754

Read more ...

Criminal Defence Lawyers: Bankside Law Recognised as leading experts in Chambers Legal Directory 2013 and Legal 500 2012

Bankside Law features in the London criminal defence lawyers section of Chambers Legal Directory 2013. The firm is described as follows “Bankside Law continues to be known for its solid fraud and serious crime work, whilst its action on corruption cases has also become more prevalent.”  Bill Wilson is recognised as a key individual. The firm, Bill and Jonathan Goldring are also recognised in the 2012 edition of Legal 500  under the leading expert crime section as follows "The team at Bankside Law benefits from practice head Bill Wilson’s previous experience as a detective inspector. Work highlights included acting in a number of murder and large-scale conspiracy cases." http://www.legal500.com/firms/815/offices/754

Fraud Lawyers: Bankside Law “continues to punch above its weight” according to Chambers Legal directory 2013 edition

The UK wide section of Chambers Legal Directory has included Bankside Law in its list of leading experts in the fraud defence lawyer field. It describes Bankside Law as follows “This compact fraud and regulatory boutique is at the forefront of applying new alternative business models to the fraud market and continues to punch above its weight, acting in cases alongside firms with a far larger footprint. It handles professional discipline, regulatory, criminal and criminal fraud work, frequently acting on behalf of senior employees at major companies who are being investigated by the SFO, FSA, CPS or HMRC.”
John Williams is described as  “a complete joy to work with," according to sources. "He is also valued for his attention to detail and deft approach to client care." http://www.chambersandpartners.com/UK/Editorial/72810#org_73938
The firm’s action on corruption cases is also recognised as becoming more prevalent.

Under the 2012 Legal 500 directory the firm and Jonathan Goldring also achieved recognition in the fraud, white-collar crime section as follows "At Bankside Law, Jonathan Goldring is an experienced practitioner in high-value fraud and serious crime cases, and has defended numerous carousel fraud cases." http://www.legal500.com/firms/815/offices/754