Solicitor reprimanded for calling opponent a “complete plonker”

Aug 25, 2015

Written By Sofia Gymer, Editor, AllAboutLaw.co.uk

Richard Gregory Barca, a solicitor at Wilson Barca, has been reprimanded by the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal following some sharp-tongued comments that he made by email.

During an aggressively fought litigation battle, Barca opened an email to his opponent: “could you for once make an effort to behave like a normal person instead of a complete plonker?” before continuing, “perhaps you should seek professional help with your illness”.

His opponent, who worked at a firm referred to as D & Co solicitors in the judgement, threatened legal action if the unprofessional comments persisted.

Barca proceeded to call his opponent’s clients ‘Mr Tweedledum’ and ‘Mr Tweedledee’ in an email relating to the disclosure process. He wrote: “we will give access to two people at our office to inspect originals. Mr Tweedledum can attend with his solicitor but not Mr Tweedledee”.

His opponent’s clients then reported him to the SRA.

The SDT found that his conduct violated principle 6, “You must behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services”.

Nigel West, Barca’s solicitor, argued that Mr Barca had been suffering from an undiagnosed medical condition at the time the emails were sent and that this “affected his temperament and strained his work relationships”.

Barca agreed that his actions had breached SRA regulations and expressed regret. He described his outbursts as ‘unfortunate’ and additionally stressed that the choice of wording must be ‘read in the context of the entire correspondence, over 2,000 pages’.

In the judgement the SDT observed: “This was a single piece of litigation in a 29-year unblemished career which was being conducted in a highly aggressive way… [We accept] that this had been the respondent’s instantaneous reaction to e-mails which he sent without allowing himself any time for reflection or pause for breath to consider the style of the response he might have sent.”

“The likelihood of future misconduct of a similar nature or of any misconduct was very low and there was ultimately evidence of genuine insight demonstrated by the respondent”.

Thus, he was reprimanded. Additionally, Barca was ordered to pay the cost of the courts, which was £2600. Many have used this as a lesson on the danger of instant email replies, particularly in the legal profession.

Blog