I hope this is not deemed an inapproprtate enquiry but ...

I'm involved with a contractual dispute which has nothing whatever to do with banks or any related matter. My solicitors have recommended a barrister by the name of Christopher Rogers. Having Googled him, I note he is described thus:

"...recent cases include defending a major bank against a claim disputing the legality of its charges...."

This - now I've picked up my jaw from the floor - leaves me in something of a quandry as to whether to use him or not! I guess the first thing I need to try to ascertain is whether he acted for "my" bank - Lloyds TSB - in which case I could find myself facing him on different sides of the court on different cases which could be fun!

So, has anyone met him in court?

The Bar Council

found this about a christopher rogers u need to add a w in front

The Bar council link dosen't work. Is this the same Christopher Rogers who lectures at a North Eastern University?

P.

sorry about the link this is what it says on the page

NAME OF BARRISTER

Christopher Rogers

Non-Practising Barrister

Called: November 1981, Inn: Gray's Inn

TYPE OF HEARING

Summary Hearing

IN BREACH OF

Paragraph 202© and 901 of the Code of Conduct (8th Edition)

DETAILS OF OFFENCE

In or about January 2005 Mr Christopher Rogers held himself out as a barrister in connection with the supply of legal services, in particular by providing a business card to a member of the public which described himself as a “Barrister at Law” in connection with the supply of legal services he was supplying, without having a current practising certificate issued by the Bar Council.

SENTENCE

Fined £500 and costs to be paid in £220

DATE OF DECISION

4 April 2006

STATUS

Final

Call his office and find out!

Incidentally, "...recent cases include defending a major bank against a claim disputing the legality of its charges...." doesn't say "won" a case... Now, who believes that any barrister who would win a case wouldn't shout it from the rooftop?

And FWIW

If hes any good and did win the case then i would want him on my side, maybe if he lost id want him to but id want to know about the case before deciding either way.

unless he is retained by your opposition, in which case im pretty certain he cant act for you anyway, then he only owes his client any duty and will act in good faith irrespective of who he has acted for in the past.

I suppose we could enter into the realms of what if this that or the other, but in truth all professionals face this kind if dilema from time to time ie representing two sides to the same argument at different times and they deal with it, usually with the professionalism you would expect.

It happens to me when i represent clients and then i work with the opposition from time to time too (and no im not a lwayer) its just part of a the job and we deal with the problems how they deserve to be dealt with.

So i wouldnt pay any mind to who hiw previousl clients were in the sense it would be about his performance and experience rather than anything else.

JMHO

Glenn

Thanks for the helpful and interesting replies.

Is this the same Christopher Rogers who lectures at a North Eastern University?

 

Not unless he commutes a lot! This one's in London.

found this about a christopher rogers

I found this, too, but I noticed this Chris Rogers was called called to the Bar in 1981. I think my Chris Rogers was still potty training then - he was only called to the bar in 2004 and is in his twenties.

recent cases include defending a major bank against a claim disputing the legality of its charges..

Yes, that one didn't pass me by! But then it would be a rare barrister to be able to claim to have won such a case wouldn't it

unless he is retained by your opposition, in which case im pretty certain he cant act for you anyway, then he only owes his client any duty and will act in good faith irrespective of who he has acted for in the past.

That was my concern, whether there would be any conflict of interest; the daft thing is that there's some bizarre rule that means a potential client can't discuss things with his potential barrister so giving him a call isn't really an option. And he has offered me an exceptionally good price for the work he's offered to do for me, so I don't want to put him off by prying too much and making him worry about conflicts. I'd rather put off my bank case a while if it came to it. That really would be a prime case of Sod's Law!!

Dont trust anyone...full stop, especially soloicitors and Barristers

oops, spelling mistake!

what's an icitor?

Dont trust anyone...full stop, especially soloicitors and Barristers

A good maxim, but dont forget to inlcude annonymous people from internet forums in this list too!!!8)

Indeed Glenn.......Speak for yourself !

Whilst any lawyer can act either for a claimant or a defendant at different times if he has acted for the apposing named party at any time he MUST recuse himself.

If he acted there would be deemed to be a conflict of interest as he may be privvy to information prejudicel to the apposing party.

If he was acting for a claimant against a bank client who he had previously defended in a simular matter then he would be guilty of prof neg & subject to sanction by the Bar Council

Interesting stuff JonCris, thank you.

Dont trust anyone...full stop, especially soloicitors and Barristers

It always amuses me that when a member of joe public needs a solicitor or barrister they suddenly become their newest best friend.