BPTC Professional Ethics 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A client asks their barrister to advance an argument the barrister believes has no reasonable prospect of success. What should the barrister do?
- Refuse to act and return the brief
- Advise the client of the weakness but still advance the argument if the client insists, unless it would amount to an abuse of process (Correct answer)
- Advance the argument without question because the client pays
- Report the client to the Bar Council
Correct answer: Advise the client of the weakness but still advance the argument if the client insists, unless it would amount to an abuse of process
A barrister must advise honestly about the merits, but may still pursue an argument on instructions unless it is hopeless or an abuse of the court's process.
Question 2: What is the effect of a barrister being 'direct access' qualified?
- They can conduct litigation as well as advocacy
- They can accept instructions directly from lay clients without a solicitor intermediary (Correct answer)
- They can practice in all courts without restriction
- They can charge VAT-exempt fees
Correct answer: They can accept instructions directly from lay clients without a solicitor intermediary
Direct access qualification allows members of the public to instruct a barrister directly without needing a solicitor as an intermediary, subject to restrictions on conducting litigation.
Question 3: Under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017, when must a barrister apply client due diligence (CDD)?
- Only when instructed by a firm suspected of criminal activity
- When undertaking relevant business such as property transactions, company formations, or trust work (Correct answer)
- In every case before accepting a brief
- Only when the fee exceeds £10,000
Correct answer: When undertaking relevant business such as property transactions, company formations, or trust work
Barristers must apply CDD when undertaking 'relevant business' as defined by the Money Laundering Regulations, which includes transactional work such as conveyancing and company formation.
Question 4: If a barrister discovers their client intends to commit perjury, they must:
- Warn the client and, if the client persists, refuse to call them or withdraw from the case (Correct answer)
- Call the client as a witness and allow them to give whatever evidence they choose
- Inform the court directly without the client's consent
- Immediately contact the police
Correct answer: Warn the client and, if the client persists, refuse to call them or withdraw from the case
The barrister must warn the client that they cannot suborn perjury; if the client insists on lying, the barrister must withdraw or, at minimum, not call the client as a witness.
Question 5: The 'wasted costs order' jurisdiction allows the court to order a legal representative to pay costs where they have:
- Charged excessive fees
- Acted improperly, unreasonably, or negligently, causing the opposing party to incur unnecessary costs (Correct answer)
- Failed to appear at a hearing
- Exceeded their brief
Correct answer: Acted improperly, unreasonably, or negligently, causing the opposing party to incur unnecessary costs
Under s.51 Senior Courts Act 1981, a wasted costs order can be made against a legal representative personally where their improper, unreasonable, or negligent conduct caused wasted costs.
Question 6: Which of the following best describes the 'end-cab rank' exception for self-employed barristers?
- A barrister may refuse any brief they find unattractive on financial grounds
- A barrister who is not in independent practice is not subject to the cab rank rule (Correct answer)
- All criminal barristers are exempt from the cab rank rule
- Barristers in silk are exempt from the cab rank rule
Correct answer: A barrister who is not in independent practice is not subject to the cab rank rule
The cab rank rule applies only to self-employed barristers; employed barristers and those not in independent practice are not bound by it.
BPTC Professional Ethics 2
A client asks their barrister to advance an argument the barrister believes has no reasonable prospect of success.
What should the barrister do?