Conditional on SAR results. Weakest JR ground.
Whether counsel participated in ex parte applications during MHCM period. Core Duties 1, 3, 5 engaged. Rules rC3, rC4. Conditional/investigatory pending SAR results.
What the opponent will argue, and why they are wrong.
BSB investigates based on admissible evidence. The allegations are speculative pending SAR results.
This ground is expressly conditional/investigatory pending SAR results. The question is whether counsel participated in ex parte applications during the MHCM period knowing the moratorium was in force. Core Duties 1 (act with honesty and integrity), 3 (not to mislead the court), and 5 (not to behave in a way likely to diminish public trust) are engaged. The SAR will provide the evidence.
Counsel is entitled to act on instructions and is not responsible for court decisions.
Counsel has an overriding duty to the court under Core Duty 1. If counsel knew the MHCM was in force (notification was sent to all parties) and nonetheless made or supported applications, that engages professional obligations. The cab rank rule does not extend to assisting in breach of statute. Rules rC3 and rC4 require counsel not to mislead.
Fallback: BSB ground is conditional. If SAR reveals counsel knew about MHCM, ground strengthens dramatically.
Independence: Partially dependent on other grounds succeeding.