Barristers from same Chambers

Would welcome opionion on this scenario please.

Hostile and highly conflictual contested residence proceedings ongoing. Mental health problems thrown in.

Now the Applicant the day before the final hearing is told that his Barrister (competent trusted good handle on the case) cannot attend as her son has been taken into hospital as an emergency. Solicitors phone round and secure another Barrister.

Applicant arrives at Court meets new Barrister and feels almost immediately that the new Barrister hasn't fully got a grip of the facts etc of the case - a nice chap but lights on nobody home scenario.

Respondent turns up with a very senior Barrister in tow who for all intents and purposes seems to be telling the Judge what to do.

Case is adjourned pending further expert medical evidence being produced despite the Respondent's solicitors stating in June that they were happy with the medical evidence they had and that the Applicant should pay for any such further evidence if he sought fit.

Contact restrictions were removed so that children are now going back to the house where the significant incident took place despite a previous Judge ruling on 6 or 7 occasions that this should not happen until the residency was resolved.

Anyway after the case Applicant discovers that the Barristers come from the same Chambers and that one is far junior to the other and begins to understand why certain behaviours took place. The Applicant feels prejudiced by this especially as he was not informed prior to the Barrister being instructed. Nor did his solicitor tell him that instructions were going to a Barrister in the same Chambers as the those representing the Respondent. In all previous hearings separate Chambers were used.

Is there anything the Applicant can do now in appealing the outcome of last week's hearing?

Long shot ... bump

Mummy I think you would need to prove the barristers had a conflict of interest, unfortunatley the way Barristers run their profession no conflict is likely (Barristers in the same chambers share expenses however they are self employed and make their own profit unless they are in a partnership or employed by the same organisation)

MB,

Unfortunately...oooooo I hate that word...the client is deemed responsible for the legal representation they employ...and the client is so well versed in legal matters and proceedings with Absolute emotional detachment when they are embroiled in divorce matters...hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Elle x

Thanks Tets and Elle,

I was under the impression though that the clerk of the chambers should have told the solicitor who would then tell the client and the client would then have the choice? Am researching the barristers' code of conduct and from what I have found so far he should have been told before the hearing went ahead so that he could make a choice as to whether to proceed with a barrister from the same chambers as the opposition. Its the choice bit that is particularly grating at the moment. Also it would seem that the barristers should have had two different clerks acting as the go between anyway when in fact one clerk had both sets of instructions mmmm. Even more worrying from having read the code of conduct barrister to barrister conversations are not privileged and if either one of them gains knowledge or information in an informal chat then that knowledge can be used !!!!

Lots of points the senior barrister made and upon which the Judge made his decision were not factually accurate and the junior barrister did little or mostly nothing to correct his senior. We believe that had matters been corrected the Judge's decision could quite easily and most likely been different.

MB,

It would be a tough one to prove and take a lot of time and energy...I am not saying dont...I had my fair share of "juniors" failing me due to my exes sols position in LSoS...this sol actually had me dragged through years of hearings to prove he was a liar and bully!

Elle x