Disciplinary Record - Julian Boyd Orr

Professional misconduct, contrary to Rule rC87.1 of the Conduct Rules (BSB Handbook, version 4.5 and version 4.6)

Julian Boyd Orr, a practising barrister, failed to observe his duty to the court in the administration of justice and knowingly misled or attempted to mislead the court, in that, on or about 4 October 2020, he created a fee note for his professional fees in court proceedings (claim number F35YM780) in which he claimed a fee of £1,000 plus VAT for attending a Case Management Conference on 20 July 2020. Mr Orr knew that the fee note would be relied on to support his lay client’s claim to costs.The fee stated was false and Mr Orr knew that it was false, as, on or around 15 July 2020, he had agreed a fee of £500 plus VAT with his instructing solicitors and he had created a fee note for the lower sum on that date.

Julian Boyd Orr, a practising barrister, failed to act with honesty and integrity in that, on or about 4 October 2020, he created a fee note for his professional fees in court proceedings (claim number F35YM780) in which he claimed a fee of £1,000 plus VAT for attending a Case Management Conference on 20 July 2020. Mr Orr knew that the fee note would be relied on to support his lay client’s claim to costs. The fee stated was false and Mr Orr knew that it was false, as, on or around 15 July 2020, he had agreed a fee of £500 plus VAT with his instructing solicitors and he had created a fee note for the lower sum on that date.

Julian Boyd Orr, a practising barrister, failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that his practice was efficiently and properly administered, in that he submitted inconsistent fee notes for his fee for attending a Case Management Conference on 20 July 2020 in court proceedings (claim number F35YM780). On 15 July 2020, he created a fee note in which he claimed £500 plus VAT for his fees. On 4 October 2020, he created a fee note in which he claimed £1,000 plus VAT for his fees for the same work. Mr Orr submitted both fee notes to his instructing solicitors to support their lay client’s claim to costs in the court proceedings.

Julian Boyd Orr, a practising barrister, failed to observe his duty to the court in the administration of justice and knowingly misled or attempted to mislead the court, in that, on 28 July 2021, he signed a witness statement which he knew would be used in detailed assessment proceedings in claim number F35YM780, in which, at paragraph 4, he attributed responsibility for an increase in the fee claimed for his attendance at a Case
Management Conference on 20 July 2020 from £500 plus VAT (as stated in a fee note created by Mr Orr on 15 July 2020) to £1,000 plus VAT (as stated in a fee note created by his Chambers on 15 December 2020) to his Chambers. Mr Orr knew that this was untrue, as he had created another fee note for the increased fee on 4 October 2020, over two months before his Chambers created a fee note.

Julian Boyd Orr, a practising barrister, failed to act with honesty and integrity, in that, on 28 July 2021, he signed a witness statement which he knew would be used in detailed assessment proceedings in claim number F35YM780, in which, at paragraph 4, he attributed responsibility for an increase in the fee claimed for his attendance at a Case Management Conference on 20 July 2020 from £500 plus VAT (as stated in a fee note
created by Mr Orr on 15 July 2020) to £1,000 plus VAT (as stated in a fee note created by his Chambers on 15 December 2020) to his Chambers. Mr Orr knew that this was untrue, as he had created another fee note for the increased fee on 4 October 2020, over two months before his Chambers created a fee note.

Julian Boyd Orr, practising barrister, failed to comply with his duty not to mislead the court in that, on 28 July 2021, he signed a witness statement which he knew would be used in detailed assessment proceedings in claim number F35YM780, in which, at paragraph 4, he attributed responsibility for an increase in the fee claimed for his attendance at a Case Management Conference on 20 July 2020 from £500 plus VAT (as stated in a fee note created by Mr Orr on 15 July 2020) to £1,000 plus VAT (as stated in a fee note created by his Chambers on 15 December 2020) to his Chambers. Mr Orr knew that this was untrue or misleading, as he had created another fee note for the increased fee on 4 October 2020, over two months before his Chambers created its fee note.

Julian Boyd Orr, a practising barrister, failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that his practice was efficiently and properly administered, in that, on 28 July 2021, he signed a witness statement which he knew would be used in detailed assessment proceedings in
claim number F35YM780, in which, at paragraph 4, he attributed responsibility for an increase in the fee claimed for his attendance at a Case Management Conference on 20 July 2020 from £500 plus VAT (as stated in a fee note created by Mr Orr on 15 July 2020) to £1,000 plus VAT (as stated in a fee note created by his Chambers on 15 December 2020) to his Chambers. This was incorrect, and Mr Orr should have known that it was incorrect, as he had created another fee note for the increased fee on 4 October 2020, over two months before his Chambers created a fee note.

Julian Boyd Orr, a practising barrister, failed to observe his duty to the court in the administration of justice and knowingly misled or attempted to mislead the court, in that, on 28 July 2021, he signed a witness statement which he knew would be used in detailed assessment proceedings in claim number F35YM780, in which, at paragraph 3, he stated that the reason that he (rather than his Chambers) had created a fee note for his professional fees on 15 July 2020 was the constraints of the coronavirus pandemic. This statement was untrue and misleading and Mr Orr knew this to be the
case, both because the pandemic had not inhibited his Chambers from producing a fee note and because Mr Orr had created a fee note in another matter on 6 January 2020 before the pandemic.

Julian Boyd Orr, a barrister, failed to act with honesty and integrity in that, on 28 July 2021, he signed a witness statement which he knew would be used in detailed assessment proceedings in claim number F35YM780, in which, at paragraph 3, he stated that the reason that he (rather than his Chambers) had created a fee note for his professional fees on 15 July 2020 was the constraints of the coronavirus pandemic. This statement was untrue and misleading and Mr Orr knew this to be the case, both because the pandemic had not inhibited his Chambers from producing a fee note and
because Mr Orr had created a fee note in another matter on 6 January 2020 before the pandemic.

Julian Boyd Orr, a practising barrister, failed to comply with his duty not to mislead the court in that, on 28 July 2021, he signed a witness statement which he knew would be used in detailed assessment proceedings in claim number F35YM780, in which, at paragraph 3, he stated that the reason that he (rather than his Chambers) had created a fee note for his professional fees on 15 July 2020 was the constraints of the coronavirus pandemic. Mr Orr knew that this statement was untrue and misleading both because the pandemic had not inhibited his Chambers from producing a fee note and
because Mr Orr had created a fee note in another matter on 6 January 2020 before the pandemic.

Julian Boyd Orr, a practising barrister, failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that his practice was efficiently and properly administered, in that, on 28 July 2021, he signed a witness statement which he knew would be used in detailed assessment proceedings in claim number F35YM780, in which, at paragraph 3, he stated that the reason that he (rather than his Chambers) had created a fee note for his professional fees on 15 July 2020 was the constraints of the coronavirus pandemic. This statement was untrue and misleading because Mr Orr had created a fee note in another matter
on 6 January 2020 before the pandemic.