The Bar Standards Board has replied to TCAP’s further complaint concerning Wendy Miller KC. It has not answered the eight questions. It has not confirmed that the 28-page mini-bundle will be assessed against the full history. Instead, it has pointed me towards a “new” reporting route, while also confirming that supporting evidence can be uploaded.
The BSB Has Replied
On 12 June 2026, I sent the BSB a further complaint and request for regulatory review concerning Wendy Anne May Miller KC.
That email attached a 28-page mini-bundle and set out the full sequence: the earlier “T v C” publication issue, identifiability, mental-health material, dual-representation concerns, the BSB’s earlier no-action and review position, Ms Miller’s later withdrawal letter, and the way that withdrawal was then used in the respondent’s strike-out narrative and Tribunal judgment.
The BSB’s response is that I am raising “new concerns” relating to counsel’s withdrawal and should complete a new reporting form.
That is too neat.
This Is Not A Standalone Withdrawal Complaint
This is not a standalone withdrawal complaint.
The withdrawal letter matters because it sits inside the same chain already raised with the BSB. It is later evidence of the prejudice and litigation consequences I had already warned about.
If the BSB treats the matter as a narrow new complaint about counsel withdrawing, it strips out the regulatory history that gives the withdrawal its significance.
That is the problem.
The Form Is Not The Point
The BSB has also said reports can be made using a Word version of the form and sent by email. I had already submitted the substance by email: chronology, eight questions, preservation request, and supporting bundle.
So the question is not really format.
The question is whether the BSB will assess the full sequence, or whether it will place the matter in a new administrative lane stripped of the earlier context.
The Context Cannot Be Cut Into Pieces
I have now asked the BSB to confirm four basic points.
First, whether my 12 June email and bundle have been logged as a report.
Second, whether the matter will be linked to BSB ref 2025/1503.
Third, whether it will be assessed with the full prior complaint, review, withdrawal and judgment chronology.
Fourth, whether any further administrative step is genuinely required.
This matters because sandboxing is one of the legal sector’s favourite little tricks. Treat each event as if it arrived alone. Strip out the chain. Ignore the pattern. Call the context “background” until the background is the whole fucking point.
The context cannot be cut into pieces just because the later evidence is inconvenient.
Either the BSB assesses the full chain, or it explains why it is trying to re-box it.
The Correspondence Will Be Published
The correspondence will be published.
The solstice has passed. The nights and paperwork is getting darker again.
Surgical summer is still warming up and doing its stretches.
Lee Thompson – Founder, The Cummins Accountability Project
Source List – Documents Held By TCAP
- Wendy Miller KC : Bundle Submitted to BSB
- BSB Email To Lee Thompson, 18 June 2026
- Lee Thompson Reply To BSB, 18 June 2026
- BSB Email To Lee Thompson, 22 June 2026
- BSB Wendy Miller KC Mini-Bundle