I agree
I’m retired after 50 years at the Bar & prefer “retired” to “unregistered”

I agree . What annoys me is the blanket description “unregistered barrister” as it smacks of negativity and fails to make a distinction between those barristers like me who completed pupillage and had 33 years of self- employed and employed practice and am now retired and the rest . What is so difficult about the BSB having a category of Retired Barrister ?

The wokeists don’t like that. They strive to lower standards not improve them. Just imagine how bad it is going to get with the socialists in charge.

I do not mind that. I am quite happy to pay my subscriptions to fund the BTS (and the costs of BSB prosecutions) to discipline practising barristers who breach the rules (like Mr Hendron).

Why should I pay subscriptions to fund the disciplining of Mr Feargrieve and all the other unregistered barristers who are disciplined, when they are not in any real sense members of the profession/

Indeed. They settle their disputes with guns.

Don’t worry – the Bar Tribunal Service website shows that there are plenty of fully registered barristers behaving badly too.

I could not agree with this more

According to other reports, Mr Feargrieve was called in 1996 but did not complete pupillage. On that footing, was he was entitled to apply for a practising certificate before the BSB imposed their ‘punishment’ of prohibiting him from applying for one. I suspect not (but he was a solicitor and so may cross-qualify). He would need to complete further training.

Notwithstanding he is no real sense a barrister, all the newspapers run a story about a “barrister” punching someone.

If I committed an offence, it would be absurd to say that a “doctor” committed the offence, just because one day I may decide train and qualify as a doctor. It is just as absurd to permit someone who has not qualified as a barrister to use that title. All it leads to is public confusion.