Past disciplinary findings

Professional misconduct, contrary to paragraph 301(a)(i) and (iii) of the Code of Conduct for the Bar of England and Wales. Mr RT, on or about 27th November 1998, charged his lay client RS for work undertaken and expenses incurred in the case of Nat West Bank plc. v. RS and MS before the Bath County Court and thereby received fees in the sum of ?500 for such work and expenses when he was and knew he was not entitled to charge or receive fees for such work as Legal Aid had been granted to his lay client in the said case, which conduct is discreditable to a barrister and/or is likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession and/or is likely to bring the legal profession into disrepute. Mr RT, on or about 2nd December 1998, charged his lay client RS for work undertaken and expenses incurred in the case of Nat West Bank plc. v. RS and MS before the Bath County Court and thereby received fees in the sum of ?500 for such work and expenses when he was and knew he was not entitled to charge or receive fees for such work as Legal Aid had been granted to his lay client in the said case, which conduct is discreditable to a barrister and/or is likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession and/or is likely to bring the legal profession into disrepute. Mr RT, on or about 11th December 1998, charged his lay client RS for work undertaken and expenses incurred in the case of Nat West Bank plc. v. RS and MS before the Bath County Court and thereby received fees in the sum of ?2000 for such work and expenses when he was and knew he was not entitled to charge or receive fees for such work as Legal Aid had been granted to his lay client in the said case, which conduct is discreditable to a barrister and/or is likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession and/or is likely to bring the legal profession into disrepute. Mr RT, on or about 5th February 1999, charged his lay client RS for work undertaken and expenses incurred in the case of Nat West Bank plc. v. RS and MS before the Bath County Court and thereby received fees in the sum of ?500 for such work and expenses when he was and knew he was not entitled to charge or receive fees for such work as Legal Aid had been granted to his lay client in the said case, which conduct is discreditable to a barrister and/or is likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession and/or is likely to bring the legal profession into disrepute. Mr RT, on or about 8th May 1999, charged his lay client RS for work undertaken and expenses incurred in the case of National Westminster Bank plc. v. RS and MS before the Bath County Court and thereby received fees in the sum of ?500 for such work and expenses when he was and knew he was not entitled to charge or receive fees for such work as Legal Aid had been granted to his lay client in the said case, which conduct is discreditable to a barrister and/or is likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession and/or is likely to bring the legal profession into disrepute. Mr RT, on or about 19th May 1999, charged his lay client RS for work undertaken and expenses incurred in the case of Nat West Bank plc. v. RS and MS before the Bath County Court and thereby received fees in the sum of ?48.17 for such work and expenses when he was and knew he was not entitled to charge or receive fees for such work as Legal Aid had been granted to his lay client in the said case, which conduct is discreditable to a barrister and/or is likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession and/or is likely to bring the legal profession into disrepute. Mr RT, on or about 27th May 1999, charged his lay client RS for work undertaken and expenses incurred in the case of Nat West Bank plc. v. RS and MS before the Bath County Court the sum of ?150 for such work and expenses when he was and knew he was not entitled to charge or receive fees for such work as Legal Aid had been granted to his lay client in the said case, which conduct is discreditable to a barrister and/or is likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession and/or is likely to bring the legal profession into disrepute. Mr RT, on or about 12th November 1998, accepted instructions to act for RS, the First Defendant in the case of National Westminster Bank plc -v - RS and MS before the Bath County Court, when there was or appeared to be a conflict of interest, namely that he himself was in disrepute with the same account manager at the Claimant bank as was involved in the said case without obtaining the consent of all parties, which conduct is discreditable to a barrister and/or is likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession and/or is likely to bring the legal profession into disrepute and/or would cause him to be professionally embarrassed.