Despite their aggressive and arrogant reputation, lawyers in most jurisdictions owe professional obligations to behave professionally and treat others with courtesy and respect.

We keep track of lawyers’ disciplinary cases from across the Commonwealth, and those concerning failures to behave professionally often make interesting reading.

Ms B, a barrister from London, recently breached her courtesy obligations during a hearing in the Employment Tribunal.

The night before the hearing, Ms B advised her opponent that she was going to apply to delete at least half the agreed facts before the court, because they contained concessions her client no longer wanted to make.

In court the next day, Ms B then ‘mimicked and mocked’ the barrister on the other side (who was 22 years her junior). Ms B mocked her opponent’s name, and echoed her words in a disrespectful tone, implying that she was behaving in a childish way in objecting to Ms B’s submissions. She went on to compare her junior opponent to a well-known British children’s character, Violet Elizabeth Bott, a spoilt 11-year-old in the Just William books. Ms B submitted to the Court that her opponent’s request for the matter to be adjourned was “… the equivalent of Ms C saying I am going to scream and scream until I’m sick”. She also submitted that her opponent must have a “fundamental intellectual difficulty,” and called her a liar.

The judge requested that she apologise. Ms B refused, saying she would “reflect upon it”. She eventually apologised, but only after her opponent had left a note with the court saying that she was unable to continue because of Ms B’s bullying and insulting behaviour. The judge postponed the hearing, reversing all the decisions which she had made.

The Disciplinary Tribunal made two findings of misconduct against Ms B, saying that she had breached her duty to the court in the administration of justice, and engaged in behaviours likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in the profession and/or abusing her role as an advocate.

Lawyers in New Zealand have similar obligations under chapter 10 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. There is no doubt that Ms B would have faced similar misconduct findings had the hearing been in New Zealand. This is especially the case following last year’s introduction of explicit prohibitions in the Rules which prohibit bullying and harassment. Ms B’s conduct would certainly count as ‘harassment’, though for ‘bullying’ the conduct must be repeated.

It’s also worth considering that Ms B’s rudeness and lack of respect for her opponent resulted in the hearing being postponed and re-scheduled, making it a complete waste of time and money. Her client probably wasn’t impressed.