John McLanachan disbarred after recklessly misleading tribunal and failing direct access clients
A veteran barrister with over four decades in practice has been disbarred after a disciplinary tribunal ruled he recklessly misled the court and failed to provide competent legal services to his clients.
John McLanachan, who was called to the Bar in 1980, faced sanctions for his conduct across three immigration hearings. The tribunal concluded that his actions “could have a serious impact on public confidence in the profession” and fell well short of the standards expected of immigration practitioners.
The Bar disciplinary tribunal found McLanachan had engaged in misconduct during a 2019 hearing before Judge Canavan in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). Appearing on behalf of a direct access client, McLanachan was found to have advanced an unarguable ground for judicial review. He also tried to rely on a submission grounded in a 2017 Court of Appeal ruling, despite that argument being absent from the stated grounds for review or any other pleadings. Critically, he failed to seek an amendment to the grounds before proceeding.
In a further breach of duty, McLanachan handed the court a “partial and selective extract” of the 2017 authority, neglecting to present the full context of the case or relevant legislative materials. This incomplete submission misled the tribunal and compromised judicial scrutiny.
Embed from Getty ImagesThe tribunal also criticised McLanachan for making misleading statements during proceedings. He falsely claimed that the original grounds for judicial review had been drafted by solicitors, despite knowing they were actually prepared by a person connected to his chambers. This claim was only corrected under “close questioning” by Judge Canavan. He further misled the tribunal by asserting that this individual was a former barrister, which was untrue.
The tribunal found another significant attempt to mislead the court when McLanachan stated he had only “had the case for a week”, despite evidence showing the client had been referred to him seven months earlier.
His conduct deteriorated further in subsequent hearings. In August 2019, McLanachan again failed in his duty to the court by submitting incoherent grounds for judicial review. The tribunal said the submission lacked any particularised legal argument and therefore undermined public trust in the legal system.
The following month, during a separate tribunal hearing, McLanachan submitted a note summarising his client’s representation history. However, this document “omitted key information” available to him and was deemed another instance of recklessly misleading the court.
In all three cases, the tribunal ruled that he had failed to deliver competent legal services—particularly troubling given that these were direct access clients, who rely on barristers without solicitors acting as intermediaries.
In a statement, a Bar Standards Board spokesperson commented:
“Barristers have a duty both to their clients and to the court. Mr McLanachan’s actions were unacceptable and incompatible with the standards expected of the profession. The tribunal’s decision to disbar Mr McLanachan reflects this seriousness.”
McLanachan admitted all charges, though the tribunal’s findings remain subject to appeal. He was also ordered to pay £3,510 in costs.
The full written judgment has not yet been published, but the decision to disbar a practitioner of such long standing signals the tribunal’s firm stance on professional misconduct and public accountability within the legal profession.
