Mr Andrew Tavis Veen
View full barrister record on The Barristers' RegisterView record
1. Andrew Veen between 9 August 2012 and 24 August 2012 practised as a barrister when he did not hold a practising certificate in that he:
i. did not hold a practising certificate between 1 May 2012 and 1 January 2013;
ii. on or about 9 August 2012 accepted instructions to represent lay clients at a hearing in the Central London County Court on 29 August 2012 in a claim the short title of which is Goldsborough v Goff & Anor 2CL10024 for a fee of £3500 plus VAT;
iii. by accepting these instructions offered to supply legal services by the exercise of a right of audience which he had by reason of being a barrister;
iv. between 9 August 2012 and 24 August 2012 supplied legal services pursuant to the said instructions by preparing for the said hearing and by drafting a list of issues and skeleton argument for use at the hearing while holding himself out as a barrister to his lay clients and to others also instructed in the same matter by his lay clients, and to his opponent barrister.
And when this was a serious failure to comply with the provisions of the Code due to its nature and extent.
2. Andrew Veen between 9 August 2012 and 24 August 2012 supplied legal services while instructed by lay clients pursuant to paragraph 401(a)(iii) of the Code to represent them at a hearing in the Central London County Court on 29 August 2012 in a claim the short title of which is Goldsborough v Goff & Anor 2CL10024 for a fee of £3500 plus VAT but failed to comply with the Public Access Rules (as reproduced in Annex F2 to the Code) in that he failed to notify his lay clients in writing of the matters set out in Rules 6(a) to 6(d) and Rules 6(f) to 6(i) of the Public Access Rules as required by those rules forthwith after accepting those instructions on or about 9 August 2012 or at all.
3. Andrew Veen between 17 April 2012 and 8 May 2013 while an undischarged bankrupt engaged in conduct with respect to his bankruptcy which was likely to bring the legal profession into disrepute in that he:
(i) was made the subject of a bankruptcy order on 17 April 2012 which was discharged on 8 May 2013;
(ii) failed to cooperate with his trustee in bankruptcy by:
a. failing to attend his first appointment;
b. failing to complete a bankruptcy questionnaire;
c. failing to provide information as to his affairs to which his trustee in bankruptcy was entitled when sought by or on behalf of his trustee in bankruptcy by letter and email;
(iii) thereby caused his trustee in bankruptcy to apply to the official receiver for his public examination;
(iv) having given undertakings to the bankruptcy court on 12 December 2012 to provide specified information to his trustee in bankruptcy, on the basis of which undertakings and his expressions of his willingness to cooperate his public examination was adjourned to 30 March 2013, failed to comply with those undertakings; and
(v) thereby caused his trustee to proceed with the adjourned public examination on 30 March 2013, with the result that the court made orders for the production of documents and information and suspending his automatic discharge from bankruptcy in view of his failure to cooperate with his trustee in bankruptcy.