Disciplinary Record - James Stewart Lockhart Bogle

Barrister Status:

Dual Capacity

Called:

Oct 1991

Inn:

Middle Temple

Hearing type:

Disciplinary Tribunal (3 person)

Decision date

27/11/2023

Breach details:

Professional misconduct contrary to Rules rC3.1, rC6.1, rC9.1 and rC8 and Core Duty [CD] 1, Core Duty [CD] 3, and Core Duty [CD] 5 of the Conduct Rules (Part of the Bar Standards Board’s Handbook – Version 4).

Offence details:

James Bogle, a barrister, failed to observe his duty to the court in the administration of justice (CD1) and recklessly misled or attempted to mislead the Court (rC3.1), in that, during the course of proceedings before the Business and Property Courts of England & Wales in case BL-2009-000006 he made submissions relating to whether his lay client (“Mr F”) had complied with an order of Mr J dated 15 December 2011 but recklessly failed to bring to the Court’s attention matters that were known to him, were relevant to that issue and ought properly to have been drawn to the Court’s attention so that the Court was not misled.

(2) At a hearing on 30 June 2021, Mr Bogle stated to the Deputy Master “I accept it would be helpful to have from Mr W a statement saying ‘I drafted this document’…I understand that, but because there is an issue between [Mr F] and Mr W, that is not forthcoming. However, Mr Bogle failed to then draw to the Deputy Master’s attention that in proceedings brought by Mr F against Mr W KC, Mr W KC had filed a defence in which he denied having drafted the application notice.

(3) At a hearing on 30 June 2021, Mr Bogle referred the Deputy Master to evidence (including a statement from a Mr G, Mr W KC’s former clerk) said to support that an application notice had been drafted by Mr W KC but failed to draw to the Deputy Master’s attention that in proceedings brought by Mr F against Mr W KC, Mr W KC had filed a defence in which he denied having drafted the application notice


(4) Having submitted both orally (at a hearing on 30 June 2021) and in writing (in a skeleton argument dated 4 October 2020) that Mr F had complied with the order of Mr H, Mr Bogle did not draw to the Court’s attention that in the extant proceedings between Mr F and Mr W KC, Mr F’s pleaded case was that Mr W KC had said he or his clerks would arrange for the documents necessary to comply with the order of Mr H to be filed with the court and served as required and that “[Mr W KC] thereafter failed to file and serve, on time, the draft, or any, amended Claim Form, the draft, or any, Amended Particulars of Claims, any application notice for the Amendment Application and any evidence in support thereof”.

James Bogle, a barrister, failed to act with integrity (CD3) in that, during the course of proceedings before the Business and Property Courts of England & Wales in case BL-2009-000006 he made submissions relating to whether his lay client (“Mr F”) had complied with an order of Mr H dated 15 December 2011 but failed to bring to the Court’s attention matters that were known to him, that were relevant to that issue and which ought properly to have been drawn to the Court’s attention so that the Court was not given a misleading and/or incomplete impression of relevant events.

(2) At a hearing on 30 June 2021, Mr Bogle stated to the Deputy Master “I accept it would be helpful to have from Mr W a statement saying ‘I drafted this document’…I understand that, but because there is an issue between [Mr F] and Mr W, that is not forthcoming. However, Mr Bogle failed to then draw to the Deputy Master’s attention that in proceedings brought by Mr F against Mr W KC, Mr W KC had filed a defence in which he denied having drafted the application notice.


(3) At a hearing on 30 June 2021, Mr Bogle referred the Deputy Master to evidence (including a statement from a Mr G, Mr W KC’s former clerk) said to support that an application notice had been drafted by Mr W KC but failed to draw to the Deputy Master’s attention that in proceedings brought by Mr F Mr W KC, Mr W KC had filed a defence in which he denied having drafted the application notice.

(4) Having submitted both orally (at a hearing on 30 June 2021) and in writing (in a skeleton argument dated 4 October 2020) that Mr F had complied with the order of Mr H, Mr Bogle did not draw to the Court’s attention that in the extant proceedings between Mr F and Mr W KC, Mr F’s pleaded case was that Mr W KC had said he or his clerks would arrange for the documents necessary to comply with the order of Mr H to be filed with the court and served as required and that “[Mr W KC] thereafter failed to file and serve, on time, the draft, or any, amended Claim Form, the draft, or any, Amended Particulars of Claims, any application notice for the Amendment Application and any evidence in support thereof”.

James Bogle, a barrister, failed to act with integrity (CD3) and recklessly misled or attempted to mislead Defendants in case BL-2009-000006, and their legal representatives (rC9.1), in that, in case BL-2009-000006 he made submissions relating to whether his lay client (“Mr F”) had complied with an order of Mr H dated 15 December 2011 but failed to refer to matters that were known to him, were relevant to that issue and ought properly to have been referred to so that the Defendants and their legal representatives were not misled.


(2) At a hearing on 30 June 2021, Mr Bogle stated to the Deputy Master “I accept it would be helpful to have from Mr W a statement saying ‘I drafted this document’…I understand that, but because there is an issue between [Mr F] and Mr W, that is not forthcoming. However, Mr Bogle failed to then draw to the Deputy Master’s attention that in proceedings brought by Mr F against Mr W KC, Mr W KC had filed a defence in which he denied having drafted the application notice.


(3) At a hearing on 30 June 2021, Mr Bogle referred the Deputy Master to evidence (including a statement from a Mr G, Mr W KC’s former clerk) said to support that an application notice had been drafted by Mr W KC but failed to then draw to the Deputy Master’s attention that in proceedings brought by Mr F against Mr W KC, Mr W KC had filed a defence in which he denied having drafted the application notice.

(4) Having submitted both orally (at a hearing on 30 June 2021) and in writing (in a skeleton argument dated 4 October 2020) that Mr F had complied with the order of Mr H, Mr Bogle did not draw to the Court’s attention that in the extant proceedings between Mr F and Mr W KC, Mr F’s pleaded case was that Mr W KC had said he or his clerks would arrange for the documents necessary to comply with the order of Henderson J to be filed with the court and served as required and that “[Mr W KC] thereafter failed to file and serve, on time, the draft, or any, amended Claim Form, the draft, or any, Amended Particulars of Claims, any application notice for the Amendment Application and any evidence in support thereof”.

James Bogle, a barrister, behaved in a way which was likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in him or in the profession (CD5) and behaved in a way which could reasonably be seen by the public to undermine his integrity (rC8), in that, during the course of proceedings before the Business and Property Courts of England & Wales in case BL-2009-000006 he made submissions relating to whether his lay client (“Mr F”) had complied with an order of Mr H dated 15 December 2011 but failed to bring to the Court’s attention matters that were known to him, that were relevant to that issue and which ought properly to have been drawn to the attention of the Court and/or the Defendants and their legal representatives so that the Court and/or the Defendants and their representatives were not given a misleading and/or incomplete impression of relevant events.


(2) At a hearing on 30 June 2021, Mr Bogle stated to the Deputy Master “I accept it would be helpful to have from Mr W a statement saying ‘I drafted this document’…I understand that, but because there is an issue between [Mr F] and Mr W, that is not forthcoming. However, Mr Bogle failed to then draw to the Deputy Master’s attention that in proceedings brought by Mr F against Mr W KC, Mr W KC had filed a defence in which he denied having drafted the application notice.

(3) At a hearing on 30 June 2021, Mr Bogle referred the Deputy Master to evidence (including a statement from a Mr G, Mr W KC’s former clerk) said to support that an application notice had been drafted by Mr Wilson KC but failed to then draw to the Deputy Master’s attention that in proceedings brought by Mr F against Mr W KC, Mr W KC had filed a defence in which he denied having drafted the application notice.

(4) Having submitted both orally (at a hearing on 30 June 2021) and in writing (in a skeleton argument dated 4 October 2020) that Mr F had complied with the order of Mr H, Mr Bogle did not draw to the Court’s attention that in the extant proceedings between Mr F and Mr W KC, Mr F’s pleaded case was that Mr W KC had said he or his clerks would arrange for the documents necessary to comply with the order of Mr H to be filed with the court and served as required and that “[Mr W KC] thereafter failed to file and serve, on time, the draft, or any, amended Claim Form, the draft, or any, Amended Particulars of Claims, any application notice for the Amendment Application and any evidence in support thereof”.

Sanction:

Fined in the sum of £2500 (sentence still to take effect).

Costs:

£¤4,200.00

Status:

Open to Appeal