Neil Wilby Media

Questions have been raised about the handling of confidential regulatory information after a national newspaper reported that a complaint had been made to the Bar Standards Board (BSB) against a senior barrister.

An article published by the Daily Mail on 1st April 2026 reported that families of victims connected to the Lucy Letby case had made a formal complaint to the BSB, alleging professional misconduct by barrister Mark McDonald. The report further stated that “a source said preliminary investigations were underway.”

The BSB, when approached for comment, did not address the circumstances in which this information had entered the public domain.

Regulatory position

In response to enquiries, the BSB confirmed that it would not comment further beyond a standard statement provided to the Daily Mail. That statement reiterated the regulator’s long-standing position:

“The Bar Standards Board does not comment as to whether or not it has received any information about potential misconduct by a barrister… Such matters are usually conducted confidentially unless they result in a listing for a Disciplinary Tribunal hearing.”

No Disciplinary Tribunal hearing relating to the matter has been listed.

Confidentiality framework

The BSB’s Enforcement Regulations (Part 5 of the BSB Handbook) provide that complaints and investigations are ordinarily conducted on a confidential basis unless and until they progress to a public hearing before a Disciplinary Tribunal.

In this context, the level of detail contained within the Daily Mail report — including the identity of the barrister concerned and the nature of the alleged complaint — is information that would typically fall within that confidential phase.

Requests for clarification

Neil Wilby Media sought clarification from the BSB as to whether it considered the publication of such information to be consistent with its confidentiality procedures, and whether any internal review or investigation would be undertaken to establish how the information had entered the public domain.

Those questions were not answered.

Instead, the BSB indicated that it did not propose to comment further beyond its general policy position.

Possible sources of disclosure

The origin of the information reported by the Daily Mail remains unclear. The BSB has not suggested that any internal confidentiality breach has occurred, and has declined to engage with questions about how the information came to be published.

In the absence of clarification from the regulator, it is possible that the information may have entered the public domain from sources external to the BSB, including individuals connected with the underlying complaint or associated proceedings. However, no definitive explanation has been provided.

Evidential and procedural issues

A central issue arising from the Daily Mail’s reporting is not the substance of any complaint made to the regulator, but the apparent discrepancy between its stated confidentiality framework and the presence of detailed information in the public domain at an early stage.

The article refers to a “source” indicating that preliminary investigations were underway. The extent to which such information may originate from, or be verified by, the regulator has not been clarified.

In regulatory contexts of this kind, the integrity of confidential processes is generally regarded as an important safeguard for all parties involved.

Silence and accountability

However, the BSB’s decision not to address the specific questions raised with them leaves unresolved the issue of how information ordinarily treated as confidential came to be reported in detail by a national newspaper.

While regulators are not obliged to comment on individual cases, questions concerning the operation of their own procedures — including the handling of confidentiality — are of broader public interest.

No further response has been received from the BSB at the time of publication.

Wider context

The reporting arises against the backdrop of continuing public and media scrutiny of the Lucy Letby case, including ongoing legal, coronial and regulatory developments.

Issues relating to the flow of information between legal representatives, complainants and the media are likely to remain a matter of significant interest where regulatory processes are engaged but have not yet reached a public hearing or final report stage.

 

Neil Wilby is a journalist, court reporter and transparency campaigner who has reported on police misconduct, regulatory failures, and criminal and civil justice since 2009. He is the founder and editor of Neil Wilby Media, launched in 2015.

Page last updated: Thursday 2 April 2026 at 13h05

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory, it will be added to the article.

Image credits: NWM

© Neil Wilby 2015–2026. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to the article may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.