Every advocate knows the line between forceful advocacy and conduct that crosses into professional misconduct can be uncomfortably close. In John Stenhouse v The Bar Standards Board [2026] EWHC 1117 (Admin), the High Court considered where that line falls when a barrister — acting in his own dispute — accuses a tribunal of conducting "secret proceedings" and of "whitewashing." The appeal failed.
What the case was about
Mr Stenhouse, a barrister, had brought his own appeal in the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) concerning late-payment penalties (by then reduced to nil or cancelled), pursuing a claim for compensation. In the course of that litigation, an HMRC litigator corresponded with the FTT about closing the file, and a Tribunal caseworker set directions inviting Mr Stenhouse to confirm how he wished to proceed.
Mr Stenhouse responded in terms that became the subject of disciplinary charges. He asserted that HMRC had made "secret representations" to the Tribunal in a "secret proceeding," that the caseworker had simply "done what he was asked to do… for the benefit of HMRC," and made an allegation of "whitewashing." There was also a finding concerning rude words said to a judge to the effect of "stop messing me around and get on with it."
The Bar Standards Board charged him with breaches of Core Duty 5 (not behaving in a way likely to diminish the trust and confidence the public places in the profession) and rule rC8 of the BSB Handbook. The Disciplinary Tribunal upheld some of the charges (dismissing the least serious).
What the High Court decided
Mrs Justice Jefford dismissed the appeal on all grounds. The Disciplinary Tribunal's findings of professional misconduct stood, as did its costs decision.
The case was unusual in that there was little dispute about the primary facts — almost everything was in writing, and the issues turned on the interpretation of what had been said. The Tribunal's conclusions on whether the language used breached CD5 and rC8 were ones it was entitled to reach; and on costs, the Tribunal had been entitled to decline a deduction for the two charges that were not proved (they were the least serious and had been properly brought), and to reject Mr Stenhouse's late, partial settlement offer as a basis for a different costs order.
Why it matters
The decision is a useful, current reminder of several things barristers and solicitor-advocates already know but sometimes forget under pressure:
- The duty not to diminish trust in the profession applies to your own conduct in litigation — including when you act in person. A barrister does not shed the Core Duties because the case is his own and he feels aggrieved.
- Unfounded or intemperate accusations carry real risk. Characterising ordinary case-management correspondence as a "secret proceeding," or alleging "whitewashing," is the kind of language that can be found to breach CD5 and rC8 — however genuinely the speaker feels wronged.
- Tone toward the tribunal matters. Rudeness to a judge is not costless.
For anyone advising on professional conduct — or simply choosing their words in a heated piece of correspondence — the case marks where strong advocacy ends and a regulatory finding begins.
Research the professional-conduct authorities on Search the Law:
Crown copyright material reproduced by permission of The National Archives. The contents of the judgment can be used under the Open Justice – Licence. The case law available through this platform only partially represents the activities of the courts and tribunals of the United Kingdom. This article is commentary for general information only, is not legal advice, and should be checked against the judgment itself, available in full on The National Archives.