A barrister has been suspended after mishandling client funds.
- Wayne Lewis, a barrister, was found guilty of several charges.
- The High Court rejected Mr. Lewis’s appeal against the tribunal’s decision.
- The tribunal considered the potential risk to other clients as significant.
- The barrister must complete further training before returning to direct access work.
Wayne Lewis, a direct access barrister, has been suspended for 18 months after a disciplinary tribunal determined that he improperly handled a client’s funds during a divorce settlement. His appeal was recently dismissed by the High Court, bringing the full details of his misconduct into public view.
The tribunal found that Mr. Lewis, who conducted most of his work through Access Lawyers Chambers, improperly held funds belonging to a client, ‘KW’, from a divorce settlement. Despite resigning as director of Wayne Lewis Ltd, Lewis remained involved in the company’s financial dealings leading to complications.
In 2017, Mr. Lewis began representing KW under a damages-based agreement, arranging to receive 15% of the settlement. Following the sale of KW’s matrimonial home, a significant sum was deposited in the company’s account. However, in 2019, Lewis withdrew £38,000 from the funds reserved for KW’s planned house purchase.
As the client requested her funds, Lewis was found to have transferred a substantial portion to his own account, with a delayed and incomplete repayment to KW that spanned nearly four years. Mr. Justice Ritchie remarked on Lewis’s numerous excuses and his misleading communication with the Legal Services Ombudsman over this period.
The tribunal proved five charges, including handling client money without authorisation and misleading the ombudsman regarding repayments. Despite his lengthy career, Lewis was deemed evasive and unreliable by the tribunal, which expressed concern over potential future harm to clients due to lack of preventive measures in his practice.
Furthermore, the tribunal imposed restrictions on Lewis, barring him from direct access work until he completes a necessary training course. The decision emphasised the enormity of the misconduct, especially considering the vulnerable position of the client involved and the funds being critical at a pivotal time in her life.
Mr. Lewis’s defence contended that the charges linked to the absence of a client-care letter were excessively vague and that the responsibility for the client funds lay with Wayne Lewis Ltd rather than himself personally. However, this argument was dismissed, with evidence clearly indicating Lewis’s personal involvement in the mishandling of the funds.
Mr. Justice Ritchie concluded that the tribunal’s judgement was well-founded, taking into account the lack of clarity in Mr. Lewis’s testimony and the significant risk his actions posed, coupled with the absence of proper oversight and control within his practice.
The tribunal’s verdict underscores the necessity for stringent adherence to professional conduct standards, particularly regarding client funds.
