My client, RP, was a returning client who faced regulatory allegations of competence and integrity. From an early stage, we, Kings View Chambers, could see a way of having the matter stopped by the Case Examiners.
This required RP agreeing to a very limited initial response and waiting for full disclosure of the case. We anticipated the Council would not be able to produce evidence it claimed it could. Indeed, in time this proved to be correct. With our full response and submissions, the Case Examiners deemed there to be no case to answer, and the matter was, once again, closed without referral to a fitness to practise.
Stephen said:
“RP had worked with us previously, so did not take much convincing. However, so many clients, and indeed lawyers, think that putting in ‘a robust’ initial response will somehow convince a regulator to abandon their case. It never does.
“What is does do, generally, is direct them to the weaknesses in their case and allow them to alter their investigation to accommodate them. This means that when the appropriate time arrives for a response, they are live to what is coming. This is strategically naïve. Never underestimate the importance of having an agreed strategy with barristers who can explain the basis of it and the rationale for it.
“Kings View will not take on a case without an agreed strategy with a client – once again it has paid off.”
RP said:
“Mr McCaffrey has been amazing throughout my stressful case, he’s been professional, thorough and his expertise is second to none, will wholeheartedly recommend him to all my colleagues in our profession. He’s fantastic and is no nonsense and gets the result you want! When I lost all hope, he turned it around.”
Disclaimer: This article is for guidance purposes only. Kings View Chambers accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken, in relation to this article. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances.