Kearney’s history of sexual misconduct sealed his fate as the High Court backs disbarment decision.
A barrister disbarred for sexually harassing junior members of the legal profession has failed in his final attempt to overturn the sanction. Robert Michael Kearney, called to the Bar in 1996, had his appeal thrown out by the High Court after a tribunal ruled his repeated misconduct left no room for leniency.
Mr Kearney admitted to sexually harassing a woman during a mini pupillage and two other pupils at separate social events. His behaviour spanned years, targeting vulnerable juniors within the profession, often under the influence of alcohol. The Bar disciplinary tribunal determined his conduct warranted permanent removal, stating such acts “need to be deterred.”
This marked Kearney’s second disbarment. The first—issued for the same offences—was overturned after the High Court identified apparent bias in the disciplinary panel. A fresh hearing was ordered, but the outcome remained the same: disbarment. It was also Kearney’s third appearance before a tribunal. In 2018, he was fined £1,000 for what the panel labelled “disgraceful” conduct towards a male pupil. Then in 2021, he was suspended for six months over crude sexual remarks made to a woman during a mini pupillage in 2015.
Embed from Getty ImagesDespite offering character references and stressing his lack of misconduct since 2020, Kearney’s latest appeal was dismissed by Mrs Justice Hill, who found the tribunal had rightfully given weight to those mitigating factors—but had also correctly identified the persistent nature of his behaviour.
“The appellant had engaged in multiple examples of similar behaviour on different occasions,” Hill J noted, “even when he was aware of ongoing investigations into his conduct.” The tribunal also considered reports that he had continued attending legal social gatherings involving drinks and dinners, despite the earlier complaints.
Kearney’s legal team had argued that a lengthy suspension would have sufficed, but Hill J dismissed this suggestion. She pointed to the tribunal’s comprehensive reasoning and said their decision to disbar him reflected the seriousness of his repeated breaches.
The misconduct took place between 2015 and 2020, with no indication that earlier interventions—warnings, investigations, even sanctions—had any meaningful deterrent effect. In fact, the tribunal highlighted that Kearney continued harassing junior barristers even after chambers and regulators raised concerns.
Hill J addressed arguments about changes in the tribunal’s sanctions guidance. Though Kearney’s actions predated the current guidance, she said its non-prescriptive nature allowed flexibility in dealing with repeated, serious misconduct.
“The tribunal was entitled to reflect on the question of why previous investigations and sanctions had failed,” she wrote. “For cases within the upper range of seriousness, which both these were, the indicative sanction is disbarment.”
Kearney’s appeal suggested that the tribunal had not fully explained why suspension wasn’t considered an appropriate middle ground. But Hill J disagreed, noting the panel carefully examined the impact, harm, and repeated nature of his actions before concluding disbarment was the only proportionate outcome.
Ultimately, the High Court ruling closes the final legal avenue for Kearney to regain his practising rights. The Bar, still facing its own reckoning with the culture of harassment and abuse in its ranks, has now permanently expelled a figure whose behaviour, the court confirmed, had no place in the profession.
