Category: Metro

Proven allegations involved misconduct towards mini-pupil

High-profile criminal barrister Jo Sidhu KC has been disbarred today after a disciplinary tribunal found him guilty of professional misconduct over allegations of “inappropriate and unwanted” behaviour late last year.

The former chair of the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) initially faced 15 allegations involving three separate women, each a law student or aspiring barrister undertaking a mini-pupillage at the time.

Legal Cheek previously reported that five of these allegations were struck out during the hearing after the tribunal found no case to answer, while a further seven were deemed not to constitute professional misconduct.

At a hearing today, attended virtually by Sidhu — who wore a dark suit and blue tie — the five-person tribunal heard submissions from both the Bar Standards Board (BSB) and Sidhu’s legal team on the severity of the misconduct.

The panel adjourned for lunch before returning in the afternoon to deliver their decision to disbar Sidhu.

The three proven allegations involved an unnamed woman in her 20s. The tribunal found that Sidhu invited her to his hotel room while she was on a mini-pupillage with him, then asked her to stay the night, changed into his pyjamas and created a pillow “barricade” on the bed. This was despite her protests that she wanted to leave the room or sleep on the sofa, she stated in her evidence.

Sidhu was found to have initiated sexual contact with the woman, referred to only as ‘Person 2’. The tribunal deemed his actions inappropriate given the circumstances, but they did not meet the criminal burden of proof to be classified as unwanted.

In reaching its decision, the tribunal noted that the misconduct occurred in a professional setting and was directed at a person in a vulnerable position, as she was a mini-pupil. The misconduct was deliberate, sexual in nature and involved elements of planning by Sidhu.

In mitigation, the tribunal heard from Sidhu’s barrister, who emphasised his client’s dedication to supporting the criminal bar, particularly through his leadership as CBA chair in opposing legal aid cuts and his efforts to mentor aspiring barristers from underrepresented groups. The tribunal also noted that Sidhu had completed over 80 hours of psychotherapy, with additional medical evidence heard in private.

Sidhu didn’t give evidence during his hearing or call any witnesses, but did submit some 140 pages of character evidence.

Last summer, it was revealed that Sidhu had surrendered his practice certificate and left No5 Barristers Chambers, which he had joined in January 2023

Although he requested a private hearing, the tribunal ruled that it would proceed publicly and that he could be identified.

The tribunal will issue a full written decision at a later date.

Hogan Lovells and Latham & Watkins among those to make online tweaks

The Law Society of England and Wales has joined a raft of legal organisations worldwide in signing a joint letter condemning the Trump administration’s recent actions against legal professionals, both internationally and within the US.

Published yesterday, the letter accuses the US government of “acts of intimidation, hindrance or harassment” targeting lawyers and legal institutions. The signatories express “dismay” over what they describe as “actions that violate international human rights law and undermine the rule of law”.

Signatories include the Paris Bar, the German Bar Association, the Law Council of Australia, and the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute.

At the centre of the controversy is a 6 February executive order signed by Trump, which imposes sanctions on staff at the International Criminal Court (ICC) and their families — a move the letter argues punishes lawyers simply for doing their jobs. The measures, which include travel bans and asset freezes, were roundly criticised by UN experts and ICC member states, and are described in the letter as having a “chilling effect” on access to justice for victims of war crimes and other atrocities.

The signatories also raise concerns about escalating interference in the US domestic legal system, citing political pressure on federal prosecutors, the revocation of security clearances for lawyers representing controversial clients, and even direct attacks on the American Bar Association (ABA) by federal agencies.

“Lawyers must be able to represent their clients without fear of retaliation,” the statement reads, “and must not be punished because of who their clients are”. The organisations are urging the US to reverse its sanctions and respect the international principles safeguarding the independence of the legal profession.

The letter comes amid what many in the profession see as a broader campaign by the Trump administration to target diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies in the legal industry. As Legal Cheek reported earlier this week, the administration has dramatically escalated its war on diversity in law, launching federal probes into the DEI policies of 20 major US and international firms, including some of the most recognisable names in London.

A&O Shearman, Freshfields, and Hogan Lovells are among those facing probes, with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) demanding detailed breakdowns of hiring and client practices. The move follows another executive order isolating firms that the administration views as politically hostile, particularly those representing clients critical of the government. Firms like Perkins Coie and Paul Weiss have already been caught in the crossfire.

In an open letter, thousands of US-based associates accused the administration of “creating a culture of fear” in which law firms are pressured to toe the political line or face the consequences.

The pressure exerted on law firms by the Trump administration has already led some major legal names to quietly adjust or remove DEI content from their websites

Law.com (£) reports that Hogan Lovells has renamed its “diversity, equity and inclusion” pages to “HL Inclusion”, removed references to LGBTQ+, disability and “institutional racism”, and replaced its DEI video with a message from its CEO. Meanwhile, Latham & Watkins has redirected its DEI webpage and removed language referencing institutional racism and its Diversity Leadership Committee. Its “diversity scholars program” has also been renamed the “pathways scholars program”.

Hogan Lovells declined to comment while Latham & Watkins didn’t respond to our request for comment.

These changes were reportedly made following the EEOC’s letters, which cite law firm websites extensively and request information on internships, partnership decisions, compensation and recruitment practices related to diversity.

The letters mark the first time the Trump administration has specifically targeted UK-founded global firms as part of its broader assault on corporate DEI initiatives.

New research spotlights profession in crisis

One in three criminal barristers are seriously considering ditching the bar, according to new research.

The Criminal Bar Association’s (CBA) findings reveal that while one-third of criminal barristers are “actively seeking to leave the bar,” another third are considering switching to a different practice area. Additionally, 12% are weighing both options.

Less than half of criminal barristers remain committed to publicly funded work, according to the survey, which received over 1,700 responses.

Key reasons behind this “crisis” include financial concerns, long and stressful hours, and growing administrative burdens. Nearly 80% of respondents say that handling tasks previously managed by solicitors and the CPS prevents them from properly “focus[ing] on the case” at hand. This all comes amid what over 60% of respondents describe as “crumbling court infrastructure”.

“The remuneration simply does not reflect the hours of work” according to the CBA, with 80% criminal barristers working “longer than 50 hours a week”. One in two work over 70 hours — 10 hours a day — with over a third working “every or nearly every weekend” on “both Saturday and Sunday”. This contributes to 84% missing “family and personal events” and over 7 in 10 suffering from “stressful childcare issues”.

Nearly 1,600 responses said they want the focus to be on “adequate and fair remuneration” going forward. Almost 9 in 10 seek a one-off percentage increase in all fees to reflect that criminal barristers have not been treated like other key workers in the last twenty years. Nearly all of those surveyed (97%) seek the same rights as all key public sector workers like judges, the civil service and others.

One positive takeaway from the research is that 80% of barristers report experiencing a sense of pride and purpose in their work at least some of the time.

These findings, though unfortunate, will come as no surprise to those following developments at the criminal bar. Barrister Joanna Hardy-Susskind recently voiced concerns about juniors leaving the profession, citing long hours and low pay as key factors.

Sent her ‘unsolicited items’ including flowers and Haribo sweets

A City solicitor has been suspended from practice following a stalking judgment against him.

Matthew Howells, previously an associate in the London office of US law firm Cooley, has been suspended and ordered to pay £2,096 in costs by way of agreed outcome with the solicitors’ regulator. Howells admitted that between March and July 2022, whilst at the firm, he stalked an ex-girlfriend.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) brought the application by relying on Howells’ conviction at Wimbledon Magistrates’ Court in March 2023.

Howells received a 12-month community order, which included a 10-day rehabilitation requirement and a two-year restraining order preventing him from contacting the victim — directly or indirectly — or visiting her home. He was ordered to pay £500 in compensation to the victim.

He left Cooley in April 2023.

The SDT has now approved an agreed outcome and suspended Howells, because “there was a need to protect the public and the reputation of the profession from future harm”.

The allegation, admitted by Howells, reads that he “pursued a course of conduct which amounted to the stalking of Person A” and which amounted to the harassment of her in that he “repeatedly made contact and sent her unsolicited items”.

These unsolicited items included “leaving a chocolate Easter Egg, Easter card, bouquet of flowers and a packet of Haribo Tangfastics outside of Person A’s door”.

Howells further admitted to visiting the victim’s address after seeing her on the tube.

“He accepted that she told him the relationship was over and that he should stop contacting her” and “accepted that he had used a dating app to have contact,” according to the agreed outcome.

The agreed outcome says the “behaviours underpinning Mr Howells’ conviction involved phone calls, emails, and the leaving of pre-purchased gifts, which, while inappropriate, did not involve threats, intimidation, or physical harm and such actions were only ever intended as gestures of goodwill in a bid for forgiveness and reconciliation”.

Howells said he “regrets the impact of his behaviour”, took “full responsibility for his conduct”, and “remains deeply committed to the legal profession”.

Whilst Howells’ mitigation was not endorsed by the SRA, the SDT held his conduct “did not necessitate” indefinite suspension or striking-off, because a six months’ suspension “was appropriate and proportionate to Mr Howells’ misconduct”.

The suspension began on 27 February.