News

Suspended chemsex barrister sells £4,000 ‘legal advice for life’ on Facebook

By on
82

Exclusive: Henry Hendron prepares for bar return

Image credit: Gay Star News

A junior barrister who is currently suspended from the profession following a conviction for drug offences is flogging “legal packages for life” via Facebook, Legal Cheek can reveal.

Henry Hendron, formerly of Strand Chambers, London, is selling his legal expertise ahead of his return to the bar, according to a post on his Facebook page. The ad, posted earlier this week, explains how punters can pay £2,000 to receive a lifetime’s supply of “legal advice and back office support” courtesy of Hendron. For £4,000, Hendron will throw in an unlimited amount of “court representation”, too.

A screenshot of the advert taken from Henry Hendron’s Facebook page

In January 2015, Hendron was arrested after his boyfriend, Miguel Jimenez, was found dead with drugs in his system. Hendron pleaded guilty in March 2016 to two counts relating to possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply, and was handed a community order with 18 months supervision and 140 hours unpaid work. In light of his conviction, the Bar Standard Board (BSB) suspended him from practice for three years.

The 2018 Chambers Most List

Hendron’s offer — which he describes as the “Legal Sale of the Century” — states that all deals will run from 17 May 2019.

Hendron, who was called to the bar in 2006, told Legal Cheek: “I have sold five such contracts already in the space of 24 hours. I anticipate that I will have a full take up for this once in a life time offer, by the time this unique offer closes on the 6th June 2018. Throughout my career as a barrister, I have strived to make law affordable and accessible to the many, not just the few.” He continued:

“The bar is changing; make no mistake about it. On my return to the bar in May 2019 I will be at the forefront of that change, opening up the law for all, not just the monied few.”

The BSB declined to comment.

Hendron has represented a number high-profile clients including Conservative politician Nadine Dorries, The Apprentice winner Stella English and the Earl of Cardigan. He was fined £2,000 by the BSB in 2014 after blogging during the trial of former deputy speaker of the House of Commons Nigel Evans MP.

Comments on this article are now closed.

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Newsletter

82 Comments

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(1)

Anonymous

Desperate, Hendron, just desperate.

(16)(1)

Anonymous

The man is an embarrassment

(24)(1)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(3)

Anonymous

Why would I want legal advice from a convicted criminal.

(62)(8)

Black Lotus

Personally, I want someone who knows the ins and outs of the criminal justice system on my side. Excellent idea Hennerz!

(19)(8)

s.32 Salmon Act 1986

(21)(0)

Anonymous

Shows how naive you are.

I actually hate all Law students and lawyers (even though I am one myself).

(7)(2)

Anonymous

Come at me bro

(3)(0)

Anonymous

😂😂😂😂

(1)(0)

Anonymous

The only alternative is legal advice from an UNconvicted criminal

(14)(0)

Anonymous

He won’t be practising on 29th May 2017 when the BSB find out about this. He won’t be practising ever again.

(10)(2)

Anonymous

Has he got a Deloreon?

(6)(0)

Anonymous

Great Scott!

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Because most barristers are no better than convicted criminals, they just know how to not get caught…
Fondly
A former client

(0)(6)

Trumpenkrieg

This is some Freeman on the Land / McKenzie friend tier shit

(51)(3)

Anonymous

Yup!

(0)(1)

Tordenskjold

This just highlights that he should have been disbarred. His behaviour has been atrocious and going on R4 before sentencing was an outrage.

(61)(4)

Anonymous

A pretty innovative scheme to be fair. If I was a career criminal and wanted to ensure regular representation then it would appeal to me.

Issue comes with the contract. What if he is suspended again or struck off? Frustration of contract must be a notable risk.

(43)(1)

Anonymous

Just because something hasn’t been done before doesn’t make it “innovative.” It could just be (as here) a terrible idea.

(8)(22)

Anonymous

Innovative means: (of a person) introducing new ideas; original and creative in thinking.

First poster is right. Second poster is utterly wrong.

(18)(4)

Anonymous

First, we’re not talking about “of a person”, we’re talking about “of an idea”.

Second, this is not a new or original idea. It just hasn’t been done before, because it’s a terrible idea.

(6)(14)

Anonymous

Innovative (of an idea) featuring new methods; advanced and original.

Your poor logic is baffling.

(13)(6)

Anonymous

Query how HH can maintain his independence when he will have 20 clients with first dibs on his time for the rest of his (hopefully short) career. What if a potential client offers him instructions to act against one of the 20? Will he refuse the instructions so as to comply with his agreement with the existing “client”, or will he accept the instructions so as to comply with the cab rank rule?

(35)(3)

BPTC student

The Handbook provides for rules on how to resolve conflicts between different provisions. In particular, the cab rank rule does not apply if rule 21 applies. Rule 21 says, amongst other things, that you must not accept instructions to act in a particular case if there’s a risk of a conflict of interest with another client.

But I’m amazed that THAT is the one particular problem you see with this…

(25)(0)

Queeg 500

Yes, but that is the problem with it. As soon as he accepts a retainer from Client 1 he has agreed to act for Client 1. As soon as he accepts a retainer from Client 2 he has agreed to act for Client 2. At the time he enters into the retainer and therefore accepts instructions he has no way of knowing whether there is a conflict or not and has already accepted instructions.

(10)(2)

Anonymous

You’ve missed the point. What HH is offering here amounts to a framework agreement re fees. In essence: “pay me X now, in consideration for which I will not charge you any fees should you instruct me to act for you in the future.” If the fool who pays HH gets into a dispute with another person, and instructs HH to act, all good. However, if the other person comes to HH first and says “I want you to act for me”, Henry cannot claim that there is a conflict of interest merely because of the existence of the framework agreement. He’s then in the situation described above whereby he would have to comply with the cab rank rule and accept the instructions, or breach his regulatory duties and comply the terms of the framework agreement.

If the intended or actual effect of the framework agreement is otherwise, such that HH is in fact offering to be bound in perpetuity not to act against a particular individual (i.e. the one entering into the framework agreement), then that is an obvious breach of his duty to maintain his independence.

(11)(0)

Anonymous

Does this sort of a retainer not also fall foul of the prohibition on holding client money on account?

(6)(1)

Anonymous

Pretty sure it doesn’t given the direct access rules.

(3)(1)

Queeg 500

I can see how that would work. But that’s not what the ad says. It says in terms, give me £4,000 now and I’ll do all the advocacy you ever need. So Client 1 and Client 2 both give him £4,000. 10 years later client 1 wants representation in a six week trial (say). It isn’t just a conflict in terms of conflicts of interest (it could be if the other side is Client 2), but in terms of diary and professional competance. Its give me the money now and I’ll act for you in any case at any time, even if I have a conflict of interest or a diary conflict or I’m not competent to do the unspecified thing you ask me to do at an unknown time in the future.

(0)(1)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

There is no cab rank rule for direct access

(0)(0)

Queeg 500

No. But you are required in every case to consider whether it is approprate to act without a solicitor, whether you have the time and experience to do the case you are accepting, whether there is a potental conflict of interest with a former / current client and whether you are available to do the hearing before you accept the instructions. Which is why I think there is a problem with accepting payment (and therefore instructions) for a case where you do not know what, where or when it is. You can’t have complied with any of the above.

(4)(0)

Anonymous

What a disgusting individual. He seems to have no shame.

(35)(3)

Anonymous

Like your mother

(5)(13)

Anonymous

Someone needs to grow up

(6)(2)

Anonymous

Yes, your mother.

(5)(9)

Anonymous

Haha. Can’t beat a mum joke 🙂

(1)(1)

Anonymous

What is the back office support he is also throwing in? Anyone any idea?

(25)(1)

Anonymous

Ask Alex

(4)(0)

Judge hobosexual

Alex often offers passing strangers his back offfice support, his grotesque manboobs flopping comically yet obscenely as he gets railed out in public

(16)(5)

Anonymous

“Back office support”

That’s an interesting euphemism, if I ever saw one.

(21)(1)

Anonymous

I insist that all our trainees are well versed in back office support.

(4)(0)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(1)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(0)

Mr. Charles

Absolute joker. The BSB must go further than its ineffectual suspension. By making such offers, Hendron is boldly sticking the middle finger up at the regulator. Disgrace to the profession, must be disbarred.

(20)(2)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Irresponsible- how can he possibly perform these contracts!? What if he breaches them – can the clients sue for future legal costs incurred by replacement barristers hired?

Can I hire him then, when he breaches or reneges (or has a clash) go and spend £20k on lawyers and sue him for the loss? Don’t see why not in theory!

Also, isn’t the whole point of being suspended that he cant offer legal services for sale?! Surely it isnt an answer to just say “oh no – im a paid mckenzie friend” – he’s practicing as a Barrister!!!

What if the client decides to set up a company mass enforcing debts? Is he comitting to go to the County Court every day forever? For £4k!!??

He needs to be struck off!! He has no regard for the BSB or the fact they indulged him by giving only a suspension. He has no integrity at all.

Anyone stupid enough to hand money over to him deserves what is coming to them.

(22)(2)

BPTC student

I stopped reading!!!! After the third!!! Exclamation mark!!!

(4)(5)

Anonymous!!!!

Why?!!!?!!

(3)(1)

Anonymous

Oh – do you not like exclamation marks? I think it was menat to convey outrage but given you are a BPTC student you may have missed that.

(0)(1)

Anonymous

What if the court dates for two of his clients clash? Money back please.

(3)(1)

Tralala

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(5)(1)

Anonymous

He’s not well connected, posh or rich.

(4)(6)

Anonymous

Just pretends to be.

(8)(0)

Anonymous

Does he? I guess his accent is quite posh, but that happens if you associate with barristers for over a decade

(1)(2)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(4)(0)

Anonymous

If its time for a Henry Hendron story, the it must be Lord Harley next.

(5)(0)

Anonymous

Four grand for life.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(3)(1)

Anonymous

Four grand for loife

Soign of the toimes

(0)(0)

Martin

I think it’s a terrible idea , a sort of 5th rate legal insurance policy . But let him try it. If it works for him and his clients then it will be a viable option for others to follow.

(3)(1)

Mr T

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(2)

Corbyn. Sympathiser

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Did you write this comment while high, drunk, senile or all of the above?

(1)(0)

Anonymous

He is far from revolutionary. Like many others he embraced direct access. Fixed fees and “all in deals” (not for life!) are commonplace. What marked HH out is (1) his ability to self publicise and (2) the fact that he appeared to have a season ticket for BSB hearings. His general legal abilities can be ascertained from a handful of low level reported cases – average at best.

His methods of marketing are not a threat to the bar. His constant damage to the image of the profession might be.

(12)(2)

Twatfish Surprise (price 3d)

Hello Henry. Nice of you to pop by.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

This seems like Legal Expense Insurance in perpituity.

There is a reason why LEI providers use prudent underwriters to offer this type of policy. They also have a limited period of cover. Think about your potential risk, Henry.

(3)(0)

Not a celebrity Barrister

Did anyone email HH for the terms and conditions? He would be a bigger fool than he looks if he didn’t include multiple exclusions and limitations – otherwise, he could end up doing a 4 month trial for £4,000. Seriously, this isn’t a new business model, it’s clearly a dude who is desperate for money, has no means of support for the next 12 months, and has come up with a wheeze to generate up to £48,000 (probably after a heavy night smoking or sniffing noxious substances) and has given little thought to how he will fulfill his contractual obligations when issues arise.

How will he return to the Bar in a years time? Surely any reputable Chambers would not touch him with the proverbial barge pole.

(10)(0)

Anonymous

His brother, Richard Hendron, previously “the youngest police sergeant in the country” has left the Bar and appears to have moved into journalism after unsuccessfully standing as UKIP candidate for London Mayor. What a pair of prize muppets they are.

(17)(0)

A Real Barrister

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(4)(0)

Anonymous

Cock up being the operative words.

(8)(0)

Anonymous

It’s the parents I feel sorry for

(4)(0)

Carnybull

These contracts must be on a Public Access basis between the client and a practicing barrister. Surely Barrister Hendron cannot enter into such a contract, even one purporting to start after his suspension, without a Practice Certificate?

(6)(0)

Anonymous

Far too much casual homophobia in these comments.

(4)(8)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

What’s wrong with debating the truth?

(0)(0)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(0)

Comments are closed.

Related Stories