⟡ “Please Use Our Online Form. We Do Not Reply.” ⟡
An Attempt to Report Legal Misconduct is Met with an Eight-Week Holding Pattern and a Link Loop
Filed: 28 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/BSB/EMAIL-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-28_SWANK_Email_BSB_AutoReplyLegalConductDisclosure.pdf
Summary: The Bar Standards Board (BSB) auto-responds to a legal conduct report with redirections, form requirements, and a declared blackout on case updates.
I. What Happened
At 19:25 on 28 May 2025, a formal misconduct disclosure was submitted to the Bar Standards Board regarding serious professional breaches in legal safeguarding contexts. The auto-reply from BSB stated the following:
– All reports must be submitted through an online form to be logged.
– No updates will be provided during the process.
– If the report is made by a barrister under rC66, the reporting party will not be informed of the outcome.
– General enquiries may take up to five days — or longer if reassigned.
– No responses will be given about specific conduct.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
• Legal oversight bodies impose procedural gates that actively discourage public accountability
• Even whistleblower disclosures involving barrister misconduct are treated with total opacity
• The system is designed to withhold outcomes — even from professional peers
• Eight-week silence is not an exception; it is embedded in policy
• No engagement or triage is offered for urgent risk-based disclosures
• Form dependence replaces institutional responsiveness
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because this is the regulating body of the legal profession — and its intake system mirrors the evasions it is meant to regulate.
Because a refusal to confirm, engage, or even acknowledge misconduct reports unless filtered through strict format control is not oversight. It's erasure via red tape.
Because legal retaliation cannot be reported to a form — and SWANK refuses to let proceduralism become the new silence.
IV. SWANK’s Position
We do not accept that reporting professional misconduct must begin with a disclaimer of non-response.
We do not accept that legal oversight bodies may shield their own from scrutiny under the guise of process.
We do not accept that eight weeks of silence is an adequate duty of care — especially when the complaint involves barristers manipulating safeguarding systems.
This wasn’t intake. This was containment.
And SWANK will log every locked door until one opens.
⟡ Second Title ⟡
“Regulators Who Won’t Regulate: The BSB’s Form-Based Refusal to Acknowledge Legal Misconduct”
Search Description (under 150 characters):
The BSB auto-replied to a legal misconduct report with form links, update blackout, and no acknowledgement of urgency or safeguarding relevance.
Court-Style Labels (under 200 characters):
Legal Misconduct, Bar Standards Board, Whistleblower Suppression, Professional Oversight Failure, Safeguarding Retaliation, Procedural Obstruction, Intake System Abuse, SWANK Legal Archive
⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped.
Every sentence is jurisdictional.
Every structure is protected.
To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach.
We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence.
This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation.
Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.
© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved.
Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.