I have written to the Bar Standards Board again about Wendy Miller KC, her withdrawal from the Cepac case, and the way professional-regulatory language was later used in a public strike-out judgment. The bundle is now with them. Their response will be published.
The Bundle Has Gone In
I have today written to the Bar Standards Board regarding Wendy Anne May Miller KC and the handling of my previous complaint under BSB ref 2025/1503.
The email was not a vague grievance. It was accompanied by a 28-page mini-bundle containing the relevant correspondence, the BSB’s decision material, the review request, supplementary evidence, Ms Miller’s later withdrawal letter, and extracts from the Employment Tribunal judgment.
The issue is simple enough.
I warned the BSB that the publication of a “T v C” case summary by St Philips Chambers, the identifiability of the claimant, the disclosure of mental-health material, the live appeal context, and Ms Miller’s later involvement in separate proceedings against me created obvious prejudice and fairness concerns.
Those concerns did not stay theoretical.
They later walked into the tribunal record wearing a lanyard.
What The BSB Now Has To Answer
The bundle asks the BSB to address the sequence properly.
First, there was the published St Philips case summary. Then there was my complaint. Next there was the BSB’s refusal to take further action. Then came my review request and supplementary evidence, including the removed summary and Wayback material. Then came Ms Miller’s withdrawal letter from the Cepac proceedings.
That letter did not simply say counsel was unavailable. It invoked professional duties under the BSB Handbook, referred to the Bar Council Ethics Line, denied conflict or impropriety, and made serious contested statements about me.
The judgment then reflected the withdrawal issue and the respondent’s strike-out narrative.
So the BSB now has a straightforward set of questions in front of it. Did it properly assess the identifiability and special-category data issue? And we asked did it properly consider dual representation and prejudice? Did its review process give a reasoned answer? And will it now assess the later withdrawal letter and judgment impact as fresh material arising from the original complaint?
Those are not abstract questions. They are document questions.
Public Case, Public Response
This was not a private disciplinary whisper in a corridor. The Employment Tribunal judgment is public. The case has been public. At the Cepac’s legal team’s repeated insistence. The professional-regulatory framing was put into proceedings and became part of the public reasoning used against me.
So I have made my position clear.
Any substantive response from the BSB will be published, subject only to genuinely necessary redactions such as private contact details. If the BSB says something meaningful, readers will see it. If it refuses to answer the questions, readers will see that too.
No spin. No theatrical fog. Just the correspondence, the bundle, the questions, and the answer.
Or the absence of one.
This Is The Point Of The Scalpel
There is a difference between allegation and sequence.
The sequence is now in a 28-page bundle.
The BSB has been asked to answer why concerns raised before the damage crystallised were not properly addressed, and why later material showing that prejudice entering the tribunal record should not trigger reconsideration.
That is the standard now.
Not vibes.
And no institutional shoulder-shrugging.
Not another regulator waving a broom at the paper trail and calling the floor clean.
The documents have gone in. The questions are specific. The case was public. The response will be public.
Surgical summer has started with paperwork.
Lee Thompson – Founder, The Cummins Accountability Project
Source List – Documents Held By TCAP
- BSB Complaint Regarding Wendy Miller KC, 7 June 2025
- Additional Grounds And Supplementary Submissions To The BSB
- BSB Decision Letter, 9 September 2025
- Request For Review Of BSB Decision, 9 September 2025
- Supplementary Evidence Including Wayback Material
- BSB Independent Review Correspondence
- Wendy Miller KC Withdrawal Letter, 20 February 2026
- Employment Tribunal Judgment Extracts
- BSB Wendy Miller Mini-Bundle