Regulatory enforcement Secure your defence Contact Charlie now

Regulatory Enforcement & Professional Discipline Barrister

Safeguard your professional reputation. Charlie represents doctors, lawyers, and senior professionals facing regulatory tribunals and disciplinary proceedings. Decisive advocacy that protects careers, challenges allegations, and navigates complex compliance frameworks with absolute discretion.

Contact Charlie

Why Instruct Charlie Sherrard KC for Regulatory Defence?

Exceptional Experience Defending Medical Professionals

Charlie Sherrard KC has extensive experience representing doctors, surgeons, and healthcare professionals facing General Medical Council (GMC) fitness to practise hearings. He understands the unique pressures medical professionals face and the devastating impact regulatory proceedings can have on careers spanning decades of training and dedication. Charlie has successfully defended doctors against allegations ranging from clinical negligence and boundary violations to prescribing irregularities and dishonesty findings, achieving case dismissals, warnings instead of erasure, and successful appeals against interim suspension orders.

As a leading silk representing solicitors before the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and barristers before the Bar Standards Board (BSB), Charlie brings unparalleled insight into professional conduct rules and regulatory frameworks governing the legal profession. He has defended practitioners facing allegations of client account breaches, conflicts of interest, lack of integrity, sexual misconduct, and dishonesty. Charlie’s deep understanding of legal professional privilege, conduct rules, and the Solicitors’ Code enables him to construct sophisticated defences that protect both registration and reputation.

Protecting Accountants and Financial Professionals

Charlie regularly represents accountants, auditors, and financial services professionals before regulatory bodies including the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW), and Financial Reporting Council (FRC). He has defended professionals facing enforcement action for alleged market abuse, compliance failures, audit deficiencies, and regulatory breaches. His strategic approach protects professional accreditation while minimising reputational damage and financial penalties.

Understanding Professional Standards Across Sectors

What sets Charlie apart is his exceptional understanding of professional codes of conduct, ethical frameworks, and regulatory standards across multiple sectors. He recognises that regulatory proceedings operate differently from criminal trials, with different burdens of proof, procedural rules, and sanctions. Charlie’s nuanced approach addresses both the technical regulatory allegations and the broader reputational and career implications, ensuring comprehensive protection for professionals whose livelihoods depend on maintaining unblemished records.

Discretion, Sensitivity, and Reputation Management

Regulatory proceedings often involve highly sensitive allegations including sexual misconduct, substance abuse, mental health concerns, and dishonesty. Charlie provides discreet, compassionate representation that protects client confidentiality while robustly challenging unfounded allegations. He understands the anxiety and stress regulatory investigations cause and maintains regular communication throughout proceedings. Charlie works strategically to manage reputational risk, advising on public relations considerations, managing media interest, and protecting professional standing within tight-knit professional communities.

Notable Regulatory Defence Cases

Charlie has achieved outstanding results defending professionals in high-stakes regulatory matters:

  • Successfully defended a senior NHS consultant surgeon facing GMC erasure for alleged sexual misconduct, securing case dismissal after exposing fundamental flaws in the investigation and witness credibility issues.

  • Represented a Magic Circle solicitor in SRA disciplinary proceedings involving allegations of dishonesty and client account breaches exceeding £2 million, achieving a regulatory settlement avoiding referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

  • Defended a barrister facing Bar Standards Board misconduct charges relating to alleged discrimination and bullying, securing complete exoneration following a contested hearing.

  • Successfully appealed High Court judicial review of a GMC interim suspension order, enabling a GP to return to practice pending full fitness to practise hearing.

  • Represented a chartered accountant facing ICAEW disciplinary proceedings for alleged audit failures in a high-profile corporate collapse, achieving a reprimand rather than exclusion from membership.

  • Defended multiple professionals facing parallel criminal and regulatory proceedings, securing acquittals that resulted in regulatory proceedings being discontinued or substantially reduced in scope.

Areas of Expertise

GMC Fitness to Practise Hearings (Doctors)

Comprehensive defence in General Medical Council proceedings covering clinical competence concerns, patient safety allegations, boundary violations, sexual misconduct, dishonesty findings, criminal convictions, health and probity issues, prescribing irregularities, informed consent failures, and medical record falsification. Charlie represents doctors at investigation stage, interim orders applications, case examiner decisions, Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service hearings, and High Court appeals.

SRA Disciplinary Tribunals (Solicitors)

Expert representation before the Solicitors Regulation Authority and Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for solicitors and law firms facing allegations of dishonesty, lack of integrity, client account breaches, conflicts of interest, sexual misconduct, discrimination, inadequate supervision, compliance failures, money laundering concerns, breach of undertakings, and failure to act in clients’ best interests. Charlie advises on regulatory settlement negotiations and represents clients in contested SDT hearings with potential outcomes including strike-off, suspension, fines, and conditions on practising certificates.

Bar Standards Board Proceedings (Barristers)

Defence of barristers facing professional misconduct allegations before the Bar Standards Board including cab-rank rule breaches, conflicts of interest, misleading the court, conduct unbecoming a barrister, discrimination and harassment allegations, social media misconduct, chambers management issues, inadequate professional indemnity insurance, and breaches of the Bar Standards Board Handbook. Charlie represents barristers at investigation stage, through disciplinary tribunal hearings, and on appeals to the High Court and Visitors to the Inns of Court.

Financial Services Regulatory Enforcement

Representation in Financial Conduct Authority enforcement proceedings, Prudential Regulation Authority actions, and regulatory investigations by professional bodies governing accountants, auditors, actuaries, and financial advisers. Defence against allegations of market abuse, insider dealing, compliance failures, fitness and propriety concerns, systems and controls deficiencies, client money breaches, misleading statements, and regulatory reporting failures.

Professional Negligence Allegations

Strategic defence where professional negligence allegations have regulatory implications including clinical negligence affecting GMC registration, legal malpractice with SRA conduct dimensions, audit negligence leading to professional body proceedings, and negligence claims triggering regulatory investigations. Charlie coordinates civil, regulatory, and sometimes criminal defence to protect professional registration while managing litigation risk.

Sexual Misconduct Allegations Against Professionals

Sensitive, discreet representation defending professionals facing sexual misconduct allegations in regulatory contexts including doctor-patient boundary violations, solicitor-client sexual relationships, workplace sexual harassment, historic abuse allegations, and allegations arising from personal relationships. Charlie understands the heightened reputational stakes and manages these cases with absolute discretion while robustly challenging unreliable allegations.

Dishonesty Findings

Dishonesty allegations represent the gravest threat to professional registration, often resulting in automatic erasure or strike-off. Charlie has particular expertise defending allegations of dishonesty including false statements, document falsification, client fund misappropriation, expense fraud, false insurance claims, CV embellishment, and concealment of criminal convictions. He applies sophisticated legal analysis of the Ivey v Genting Casinos dishonesty test and challenges evidence through detailed cross-examination.

Parallel Criminal and Regulatory Proceedings

Expert management of cases where professionals face simultaneous criminal prosecution and regulatory proceedings including assault allegations, sexual offences, fraud and dishonesty, driving offences, drug offences, and health and safety breaches. Charlie strategically coordinates criminal defence with regulatory defence, advising on disclosure issues, witness evidence, abuse of process arguments, and case management to protect both liberty and professional registration.

Recognition

“Charlie Sherrard KC demonstrates an exceptional understanding of professional standards and regulatory frameworks across multiple sectors. His ability to distil complex regulatory codes into persuasive advocacy is unmatched.” — Chambers UK Bar Guide

“When a professional’s career hangs in the balance, Charlie is the silk to instruct. His meticulous preparation and commanding advocacy in regulatory tribunals consistently achieve outstanding results.” — Legal 500 Leading Silk

“Charlie’s ability to navigate the intersection of criminal and regulatory proceedings is extraordinary. He protected my GMC registration while securing an acquittal in parallel criminal proceedings—his strategic insight was invaluable.” — NHS Consultant

“Facing SRA disciplinary proceedings was the most stressful experience of my career. Charlie’s discretion, expertise, and reassuring approach gave me confidence throughout. His cross-examination at the tribunal was masterful.” — Senior Solicitor

The Regulatory Defence Difference

Early Intervention Strategy

The investigation stage is critical in regulatory proceedings. Charlie provides early strategic advice before formal allegations are made, advising on engagement with regulatory investigators, responses to requests for information, voluntary attendance at interviews, disclosure of health concerns, and whether to make substantive responses or rely on privilege against self-incrimination. Early intervention can shape the scope of allegations, facilitate regulatory settlement, or lead to investigation closure without formal proceedings.

Managing Parallel Proceedings

Many professionals face simultaneous criminal prosecution and regulatory proceedings, creating strategic dilemmas around evidence disclosure, witness statements, and defence strategies. Charlie expertly coordinates parallel proceedings, advising on abuse of process applications, stay applications pending criminal trial outcomes, disclosure obligations, use of criminal evidence in regulatory proceedings, and witness evidence consistency across forums. His holistic approach protects both liberty and professional registration.

Protecting Professional Registration

Regulatory sanctions ranging from conditions and suspension to erasure and strike-off can end careers. Charlie’s defence strategy focuses on protecting registration through case dismissal, challenging evidence, mitigating sanctions, negotiating regulatory settlement, and appealing adverse decisions. He presents compelling mitigation including remediation evidence, testimonials, continuing professional development, health treatment engagement, and insight into failings.

Reputation Management

Regulatory proceedings can attract media attention and damage professional reputations irreparably. Charlie advises on reputational protection including managing disclosure to employers, professional indemnity insurers, and regulatory bodies; coordinating with public relations advisers; addressing social media commentary; and protecting confidentiality within professional communities. His discreet approach minimises reputational harm while robustly defending allegations.

Appeals and Judicial Review

When regulatory decisions are adverse, Charlie has extensive experience appealing tribunal decisions to the High Court, challenging interim suspension orders through judicial review, appealing against substantive findings and sanctions, and pursuing statutory appeals under sector-specific regulatory frameworks. His appellate expertise has secured numerous successful outcomes overturning unjust regulatory decisions.

Frequently Asked Questions About Regulatory Enforcement

What is the standard of proof in regulatory proceedings?
Regulatory proceedings apply the civil standard of proof—the balance of probabilities—rather than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. However, where serious allegations such as dishonesty or sexual misconduct are made, tribunals apply the principle from Re B that more cogent evidence is required to prove serious allegations. This means that while the standard remains balance of probabilities, the quality and weight of evidence needed increases with the seriousness of the allegation. Charlie ensures tribunals properly apply this nuanced approach, challenging insufficient evidence that fails to meet the required threshold for serious professional misconduct findings.
Can I face both criminal and regulatory proceedings for the same conduct?
Yes, professionals commonly face parallel criminal prosecution and regulatory proceedings arising from the same facts. This is not considered double jeopardy because criminal proceedings concern punishment for criminal offences while regulatory proceedings concern fitness to practise and public protection. However, parallel proceedings create strategic challenges including disclosure obligations, witness evidence consistency, and whether regulatory proceedings should be stayed pending criminal trial outcomes. Charlie expertly manages parallel proceedings, advising whether to seek a stay, how to coordinate defence strategies, and addressing evidential issues that arise when evidence from criminal proceedings is used in regulatory hearings.
What happens if I'm found guilty of professional misconduct?
If a regulatory tribunal finds misconduct proved, sanctions range from no action and warnings (least serious) through conditions on practice and suspension (intermediate) to erasure or strike-off (most serious). The tribunal considers sanction separately from findings, applying a principle of proportionality and focusing on public protection, maintaining professional standards, and public confidence in the profession. Charlie presents compelling mitigation including evidence of insight, remediation, testimonials, and personal circumstances to persuade tribunals that lesser sanctions are appropriate. Even where findings are made, skilled advocacy at the sanction stage can mean the difference between continuing to practise and career-ending erasure.
How long do regulatory proceedings take?
Regulatory proceedings typically take 12-24 months from initial allegation to final hearing, though complex cases can take significantly longer. The process includes investigation stage (3-9 months), case examiner or investigation committee consideration (2-6 months), preparation for hearing (6-12 months), and the hearing itself (typically 3-10 days spread over several weeks or months). Delays can occur due to witness availability, expert evidence, parallel criminal proceedings, and tribunal listing backlogs. Charlie proactively manages case progression, challenging unnecessary delays that prejudice fair hearing rights and creating strategic delay where beneficial to client interests, such as awaiting criminal trial outcomes or completing remediation activities.
Should I admit allegations to show remorse and insight?
This is a critical strategic decision requiring expert advice. While early admission can demonstrate insight and may result in reduced sanctions, admitting unfounded allegations ends your career unnecessarily. Charlie carefully analyses the evidence strength before advising whether to admit, partially admit, or contest allegations. Where evidence is strong and findings likely, early admission with compelling mitigation can persuade tribunals that lesser sanctions suffice. Where evidence is weak, contesting allegations may result in case dismissal or reduced findings. Charlie ensures clients make informed decisions based on realistic assessment of evidence and prospects, never advising admission to allegations that can be successfully defended.
What is interim suspension and can it be challenged?
Interim suspension (or interim conditions) is a temporary measure imposed pending full hearing where a regulatory body believes public protection, public interest, or practitioner's interests require it. Interim orders prevent professionals from practising during lengthy investigation and hearing processes, causing severe financial and career hardship. Charlie challenges interim orders through representations to regulatory bodies, contested interim order hearings, applications for revocation or variation of orders, and judicial review in the High Court. Successful challenges often turn on demonstrating that allegations are weak, risk is manageable through conditions rather than suspension, or suspension is disproportionate. Charlie has secured numerous interim order revocations enabling professionals to continue practising pending final hearings.
Can regulatory findings be appealed?
Yes, regulatory tribunal decisions can be appealed to the High Court on grounds including wrong law application, procedural unfairness, insufficient evidence to support findings, irrational decision-making, and disproportionate sanctions. Appeals are by way of rehearing on transcripts rather than full re-trials. The High Court can allow appeals, dismiss appeals, substitute different findings or sanctions, or remit cases back to tribunals for reconsideration. Time limits for appeals are typically strict (28 days from written decision). Charlie has extensive appellate experience, successfully appealing erasure orders, overturning misconduct findings, and reducing sanctions through High Court appeals and judicial review proceedings.
What is the difference between misconduct and serious misconduct?
Misconduct is conduct falling significantly short of professional standards, while serious misconduct is conduct fundamentally incompatible with continued registration. The distinction is critical because serious misconduct—particularly dishonesty—almost invariably results in erasure or strike-off, whereas misconduct may result in lesser sanctions. Tribunals assess seriousness by considering the nature of conduct, harm caused, level of culpability, breach of trust, repetition, concealment, and insight demonstrated. Charlie challenges allegations being characterised as serious misconduct where appropriate, demonstrating that conduct falls short of the threshold requiring erasure. Even where serious misconduct is found, Charlie presents exceptional mitigation showing why the case is one of the rare exceptions where a professional can continue to practise despite serious failings.

Protecting professional reputations. Defending professional standards. Securing professional futures.

This site uses essential cookies to make is work and analytics cookies to understand how you interact with it. It also uses cookies to remember your preferences and improve your experience. Learn more