The Bar Standards Board has now confirmed that TCAP’s further Wendy Miller KC complaint will be treated as a new report, requiring completion of its reporting form. The form has been completed and submitted. That does not solve the problem. It sharpens it. This matter has already been sent to the wrong jurisdiction once, when the Tribunal appeared to do the BSB’s job for it. Now the BSB must not pretend that the Tribunal’s treatment of the issue replaces regulatory assessment.
The Form Has Been Submitted
The BSB said it could not use my 12 June 2026 email as a report and required completion of its reporting form.
That form has now been completed and sent.
The BSB also said I did not need to retype all the information already provided, did not need to resubmit evidence already provided, and could state that the matter is related to case 2025/1503.
That is important.
The report is not a freestanding complaint about counsel’s withdrawal. It is a linked further report arising from the same sequence already raised with the BSB: the “T v C” publication issue, identifiability, mental-health material, dual-representation concerns, live-proceedings prejudice, the BSB’s earlier no-action/review position, Ms Miller’s later withdrawal letter, and the use of that withdrawal issue in the strike-out narrative and Tribunal judgment.
Judge James Is Not The BSB
The Employment Tribunal judgment did not merely record the Wendy Miller issue.
It appeared to step into regulatory territory.
The judgment made findings around former counsel, the supposed absence of wrongdoing, the cab-rank rule, and the dual-representation point. It treated the issue as if it could be tidied away inside the Tribunal’s own reasoning.
That is not good enough.
Judge James is not the Bar Standards Board.
Nor was he conducting a criminal trial, a regulatory inquiry, or a professional-conduct assessment.
He does, however, perform a neat never-ending-handkerchief trick with jurisdiction. Pull once and out comes counsel withdrawal, cab-rank rule, dual representation, domain names, former counsel, witness intimidation flavouring, and apparently the BSB’s job as well.
That thing never ends.
An Employment Tribunal judge deciding strike-out, costs and case-management issues does not replace the regulator. The Tribunal could decide what weight it gave to the material in front of it. It could not conduct the BSB’s professional-conduct assessment for it.
That distinction matters. If it does not, why have the BSB at all?
Two Trips To The Wrong Jurisdiction
This is now the pattern.
First, the Tribunal appeared to do the regulator’s job by treating the Miller issue as resolved, meritless, or professionally clean inside the strike-out judgment.
Now the BSB has tried to place the later evidence into a new administrative lane, rather than treating it as part of the same complaint and review chronology.
That is two trips to the wrong jurisdiction.
The Tribunal was not the BSB.
The form is not the substance.
The context is the point.
The Context Cannot Be Sandboxed
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.
That is what cannot happen here.
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 warned about.
The Tribunal’s finding does not replace regulatory assessment. It is part of the problem. The professional-regulatory concern was placed into live litigation, then treated by the Tribunal as resolved or meritless without the BSB giving a proper reasoned answer to the underlying context.
The BSB Now Has The Form
The BSB now has the form it asked for.
It also has the 12 June email, the 28-page mini-bundle, the earlier complaint and review material, Ms Miller’s withdrawal letter, and the relevant Tribunal judgment extracts.
The question is simple.
Will the BSB assess the full chain, or will it let the Tribunal’s wrong-jurisdiction tidy-up do the regulator’s work for it?
The correspondence will be published.
Lee Thompson – Founder, The Cummins Accountability Project
Source List – Documents Held By TCAP
- Wendy Miller KC : Bundle Submitted to BSB
- Wendy Miller KC : The BSB’s New-Lane Shuffle
- BSB Email To Lee Thompson, 22 June 2026, 16:47
- Completed BSB Reporting Form Submitted By Lee Thompson
- Employment Tribunal Judgment Extracts Concerning Former Counsel
- BSB Ref 2025/1503 Complaint And Review Material