Past disciplinary findings

On one or more of the following occasions, Peter Wareing, an unregistered barrister while his practising certificate was suspended from 19 July 2021 to 18 January 2022, acted without integrity in that he accepted instructions to act for clients, and practised on their behalf (including reserved legal activities, contrary to sections 14 and 17 of the Legal Services Act 2007) while holding himself out as a barrister (in particular, by using
his Chambers email account; mentioning his Chambers in his email signature; failing to disclose the fact of his suspension; maintaining online profiles referring to himself as a practising barrister; and acting where there were no solicitors on record) and in circumstances where he knew that he was not authorised to practice.

1. Mr Wareing, having been instructed to act for the defendant in the matter of Alliance Property Investors Limited v Kennedy Wright Assets Limited, in the
Business and Property Court, on 22 August 2021, supplied a legal service, namely filing and serving a skeleton argument, while conveying the impression that he was practising as a barrister.
2. Mr Wareing, having been instructed to act for the defendant in a case which was listed for hearing on 7 September 2021 in the County Court at Clerkenwell &
Shoreditch, corresponded with the court and with the claimant on behalf of the defendant on 6 and 7 September 2021 in relation to the listing of the matter for 7 September 2021, while conveying the impression that he was practising as a barrister.
3. Mr Wareing, having been instructed to act for the claimant in the matter of Michael Allen v Precision Engineering and Richard Carr v. Precision Engineering, listed for hearing in Birmingham Employment Tribunal on 15 September 2021, and having previously been instructed as counsel in the matter for the claimant, sent correspondence to the defendants’ solicitors on 23 August 2021 and 11 September 2011 relating to arrangements for bundles, in which he failed to explain the change to his authorisation by the BSB, while conveying the impression that he was practising as a barrister
4. Mr Wareing accepted instructions to act for a lay client, the Defendant in a case which was listed in Lewes County Court on 25 October 2021, which he attended
and at which he represented his client, and on whose behalf he sent correspondence relating to bundles to the claimant’s solicitors on 18 October 2021, while conveying the impression that he was practising as a barrister.

On one or more of the following occasions, Peter Wareing, an unregistered barrister while his practising certificate was suspended from 19 July 2021 to 18 January 2022, acted in a way which was likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public
places in him or in the profession in that he accepted instructions to act for clients, and practised on their behalf (including reserved legal activities, contrary to sections 14 and 17 of the Legal Services Act 2007) while holding himself out as a barrister (in particular, by using his Chambers email account; mentioning his Chambers in his email signature; failing to disclose the fact of his suspension; maintaining online profiles referring to himself as a practising barrister; and acting where there were no solicitors on record) and in circumstances where he knew that he was not authorised to practice.
1. Mr Wareing, having been instructed to act for the defendant in the matter of Alliance Property Investors Limited v Kennedy Wright Assets Limited, in the
Business and Property Court, on 22 August 2021, supplied a legal service, namely filing and serving a skeleton argument, while conveying the impression
that he was practising as a barrister.
2. Mr Wareing, having been instructed to act for the defendant in a case which was listed for hearing on 7 September 2021 in the County Court at Clerkenwell &
Shoreditch, corresponded with the court and with the claimant on behalf of the defendant on 6 and 7 September 2021 in relation to the listing of the matter for 7 September 2021, while conveying the impression that he was practising as a barrister.
3. Mr Wareing, having been instructed to act for the claimant in the matter of Michael Allen v Precision Engineering and Richard Carr v. Precision Engineering, listed for hearing in Birmingham Employment Tribunal on 15 September 2021, and having previously been instructed as counsel in the matter for the claimant, sent correspondence to the defendants’ solicitors on 23 August 2021 and 11 September 2011 relating to arrangements for bundles, in which he failed to explain the change to his authorisation by the BSB, while conveying the impression that he was practising as a barrister.
4. Mr Wareing accepted instructions to act for a lay client, the Defendant in a case which was listed in Lewes County Court on 25 October 2021, which he attended and at which he represented his client, and on whose behalf he sent correspondence relating to bundles to the claimant’s solicitors on 18 October 2021, while conveying the impression that he was practising as a barrister.

On one or more of the following occasions, Peter Wareing, an unregistered barrister while suspended from 19 July 2021 to 18 January 2022, accepted public access instructions from or on behalf of a public access client without being properly qualified:
1. Mr Wareing accepted public access instructions to act on behalf of the defendant in the matter of Alliance Property Investors Limited v Kennedy Wright Assets Limited, in the Manchester Business and Property Court.
2. Mr Wareing accepted public access instructions to act on behalf of a lay client, the defendant in a matter listed to be heard at the Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court on 07 September 2021.
3. Mr Wareing accepted public access instructions to act for a lay client, the defendant, in a case which was listed in Lewes County Court on 25 October 2021.

On one or more of the following occasions, Peter Wareing, an unregistered barrister while suspended from 19 July 2021 to 18 January 2022, carried out a reserved legal activity in circumstances when he was not entitled to do so under the Legal Services
Act 2007, namely:
1. Mr Wareing, having been instructed to act for the lay defendant in the matter of Alliance Property Investors Limited v Kennedy Wright Assets Limited, in the Business and Property Court, exercised a right of audience when he filed and served a skeleton argument on his opposing counsel on 22 August 2021.
2. Mr Wareing, having been instructed to act for the lay defendant in the matter of Alliance Property Investors Limited v Kennedy Wright Assets Limited, in the Business and Property Court, exercised or attempted to exercise a right of audience when he appeared before Woodward J on 24 August 2021.