Best Lawyer - Professional Malpractice Litigation
Sources label him "a charming tactician."
Recognised as a Senior Statesperson
Recognised as a Key Lawyer for Professional Discipline
Has a wealth of experience in the field of professional regulation, can identify what is important in a case and exactly how all the elements should be managed.
I began my career as a commercial litigator and have specialised in Professional Regulation for the past 20+ years. Over that time I have been privileged to act for many of the major regulators in the healthcare, veterinary and legal sectors. I have a particular interest in veterinary law and practice. For many years I appeared as an advocate for the Solicitors Regulation Authority in cases brought by them to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
My core work these days involves investigating allegations of professional misconduct, preparing cases for Disciplinary Committee hearings and having conduct of appeals brought by registrants. I also regularly advise regulator clients on policy and more high level issues, assisting them with the drafting of protocols, defending Judicial Review applications and delivering training for their staff and committees.
The case concerned her role in providing Certificates of Competence in connection with the implementation of the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations (England) 2015. It was found that she had dishonestly backdated certificates for two slaughtermen and had also failed to prepare herself for implementation of the new Regulations. I led the investigation on behalf of the RCVS, personally interviewing many witnesses - including one of the slaughtermen, senior staff from the Food Standards Agency and the Animal and Plant Health Agency together with a number of other Official Veterinarians.
The case involved the nurse dishonestly representing to one greyhound rescue charity that she was in possession of a dog when she had already parted with possession of the dog to another greyhound charity. When giving the Disciplinary Committee’s decision, the Chair commented that "The gravamen of the respondent’s dishonest conduct was that she set one dog rescue charity against another, caused them to spend publicly raised funds on a legal dispute about who should be allowed to retain Lola when those precious funds ought, instead, to have been spent on their charitable objectives"
The audiences consisted variously of members of the regulators’ Disciplinary and Investigating Committees and Professional Conduct staff members. Both lots of training have involved a mixture of talks on “hot” legal topics and interactive case scenarios which were well received.