Marios Lambis KC has been undertaking criminal, professional discipline and regulatory work for all of his career.
Originally from a criminal practice, which encompassed major frauds and terrorist cases, including the first Iraqi Hijacking trial in which he was the youngest counsel instructed, Marios Lambis KC has been undertaking criminal, professional discipline and regulatory work for all of his career. His experience and level of knowledge has led to him undertaking work before most regulators not only presenting and defending but also advising. This included being one of only eight lawyers (the only junior counsel) invited to advise on the new fitness to practice rules for the organisation that was to take over the hearings for the General Medical Council.
In the course of his career he has advised and/or represented the Home Office, multinational enterprises, non-governmental organisations (‘NGO’s’), many domestic and internationally recognized corporate entities and many regulators. These have covered areas ranging from environmental pollution, health & safety, fitness to practice of professionals of all descriptions (including those facing criminal allegations and the prospect of losing their liberty) and how corporate entities fulfil their many and numerous regulatory requirements and/or obligations.
He has been asked to chair meetings between multinationals and NGO’s both overseas and in the United Kingdom.
Marios is also a Recorder of the Crown Court with a licence to try Serious Sexual Offences and to hear appeals.
Winner of the Professional Disciplinary and Regulatory Silk of the Year at The Legal 500 UK Bar Awards 2023.
Marios has also recently been shortlisted for both the Professional Discipline Silk of the Year at the Legal 500 UK Bar Awards 2024, and the Chambers & Partners UK Bar Awards 2024.
For all of his career Marios has been instructed in cases of the utmost seriousness including cases where the liberty of company directors were at play and that involved an international dimension. This has included the initial ‘Iraqi’ hijacking trial where detailed arguments in respect of the defence of duress of necessity, the concepts of ‘immediacy’, ‘proportionality’, the Nuremberg Convention and other treaties governing crimes against humanity were fully argued both before the Crown court and later before the Court of Appeal.
He has both been led and dealt with cases as a leading junior (prior to taking Silk) in cases ranging from riot to drugs importations and murder. This has included cases where it was alleged the criminal conduct was to raise funds for Al-Quaeda. He was also instructed in what was at the time the largest re-insurance fraud in British history and has acted as Special/Independent Counsel in matters pertaining to disclosure involving professional individuals and potential criminal offending.
GMC v Dr TP
Marios represented the interests of a senior consultant in the Crown Court convicted of a fraud against his employing hospital over many years. Despite the loss initially being placed at over £40,000 Marios succeeded in securing the doctor a suspended sentence.
R v V & Others
Marios defended in an Serious Fraud Office (‘SFO’) prosecution, involving a multi-million pound international re-insurance fraud, which raised issues. The case encompassed areas such as European Directives, public and private international law, conflicts of law together with the specialised and complex areas of enforceability, implied actual authority, ostensible authority and ratification. SFO elected not to proceed at trial following defence submissions on the law.
R v H & Others
Marios appeared as junior counsel for one of the Iraqi men accused of hijacking a plane from Jordan to the United Kingdom in order to escape the Sadam Hussein regime in which he feared death. At the time this was only the second ever hijacking case in English history and Marios was the youngest of all the counsel instructed. The case involved legal arguments on the defence of necessity, crimes against humanity and the Nuremberg Convention.
R v Dr A
Marios defended a general practitioner in the Crown Court accused by five separate female patients (unknown to each other) of sexually motivated and inappropriate examination and touching of their breasts. Despite the Crown calling expert evidence that all these examinations were not clinically justified or appropriately executed, including for the one patient that attended for an in-growing toenail, the doctor was acquitted of all the allegations.
CQC v Corporate Entity & Another
Marios defended a company and one of its individual directors operating an exclusive ‘detox’ retreat used by many stars and celebrities. The CQC issued criminal proceedings in which it alleged a multitude of regulatory breaches against both the corporate entity and the individual director (who was also separately registered with another regulator). Marios advised and negotiated a settlement on behalf of the defence.
R v S
Marios defended a young mother accused of trying to kill her own child whilst in the throws of a psychotic episode. The case involved detailed legal argument and expert evidence.
For all his career Marios has appeared in inquests both for and against government agencies, companies and private organisations. This has included acting for police officers, doctors and military personnel.
Inquest in the Death of XX
Marios appeared for one of the General Practitioner’s at a five week jury inquest investigating the detention of an individual, who died at Harmondsworth Removal Centre.
Although the Crown Prosecution Service initially considered charges should be instigated against a number of the organisations involved in the running of the detention centre and its health service, these charges were dropped in late 2018.
The inquest in involved a number of interested parties including Northamptonshire Police, the Home Office, GEO, Nestor Primecare and the Independent Monitoring Board.
In The Matter of Paper Manufacturer & NGO’s
Marios chaired a series of meetings between the (then) world’s largest manufacturer of paper products and various non-governmental organisations (NGO’s) including Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and others where very sensitive and politically hazardous issues were raised. This included the company’s alleged use of slave labour, the alleged denial of services to disabled employees and the alleged exploitation of illiterate and/or young employees.
In The Matter of L
Marios advised and appeared for a young child in a number of forums including the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. The case involved detailed and complex areas of law in respect of an award to the child which could potentially be exploited by the perpetrator of the crime, given the applicants’ age. In this case the child’s father had killed his mother and there was concern that even unwittingly the father may get access to any award given that the child was not of age.
Marios advises and represents clients from a wide variety of industry sectors in cases brought by their regulatory bodies, and in related proceedings in the criminal, civil and coronial courts, and other tribunals. He appears both at first instance and advises on appeals and judicial review applications to the High Court. He specialises in complex and lengthy cases before disciplinary committees, and in the High Court, and is adept at quickly identifying key issues. He is instructed by major indemnity providers and corporate bodies and the regulators to advise and appear on behalf of their members.
His experience has meant that Marios is often asked to advise on matters of particular signifance to both the regulators and those that are regulated. He was one of only two barristers (the other being a KC when Marios was a Junior) to advise the precursor of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service on the form and nature of its fitness to practice rules.
He is often invited to lecture regulator and imndemnifiers as well as the wider profession on particular problems posed in litigation and professional discipline.
In 2023, despite being in Silk for only a relatively short period of time Marios was awarded Professional Disciplinary and Regulatory Silk of the Year at The Legal 500 UK Bar Awards 2023.
GMC v XX
Marios mounted a successful abuse of process against the General Medical Council (‘GMC’) in respect of a Consultant Psychiatrist accused of multiple misconduct allegations which included clinical and record keeping deficiencies, allegedly involving some 17 patients. On one count the doctor faced almost 1900 possible findings of fact and the investigation into his conduct had spanned some 5 years. Marios argued that the manner in which the GMC conducted (or did not) its investigation into the issues of the case, the background to the case, and the nature and number of allegations meant that the doctor could not receive a fair hearing and/or in all the circumstances of the case, it would be unfair to try him. The Tribunal found that there had been an abuse of the process and stayed the proceedings. The Tribunal found, given the history of the case and the deficiencies identified by the Defence that, amongst other things, that it would be ‘unconscionable to allow this unwieldy, imprecise allegation to proceed to a substantive hearing’.
BACP v CG
Marios represented the interests of a registrant of the Health & Care Professions Council (‘HCPC’) accused of dishonesty. The case involved allegedly false claims to insurers over a number of years. The insurer had also referred the registrant to the police. The allegations and the HCPC investigation spanned many years. Prior to the substantive hearing the Defence put the HCPC on notice of its intention to mount an abuse of process argument to stay the proceedings in the light of the manner in which the regulator had investigated the matter, the nature of its evidence and its numerous other failures. Having received the Defence’s skeleton argument, but prior to the argument, the HCPC sought an adjournment to seek to remedy some of the many deficiencies identified by the Defence by Marios. Despite having obtained that uncontested adjournment, the HCPC made an application to discontinue the entirety of its case against the Registrant.
GMC v D
Marios successfully defended a General Practitioner facing over 97 possible findings of fact. The GP in question faced allegations of dishonesty, bullying, the deleting of patient records, leaving the practice without doctor cover and improperly closing patient/practice lists. The GMC alleged there were serious issues pertaining to mismanagement of his practice generally, his staff and the inappropriate storing of patient records. The hearing lasted approximately 5 weeks and there was a plethora of legal arguments. These included, Defence criticism of the General Medical Council (‘GMC’) in respect of its conduct in the case: in particular, whether it had properly complied with issuespertaining to calling witnesses of truth and properly executing its prosecutorial function,not least in reviewing its case as and when necessary. At the end of the facts stage of the proceedings (Stage 1), the Tribunal found all the outstanding allegations not proved and subsequently determined that the GP’s fitness to practice was not impaired.
GMC v F
Marios appeared for a doctor facing a multitude of allegations including sexual behavior with a child and viewing of pornography at various venues. He was successful in arguing before the Panel that the GMC bringing proceedings against a doctor for viewing legal pornography in his own home, despite children having access to that computer, was outwith the role of the regulator and an infringement of the doctor’s rights under the Human Rights Act.
GMC v R
Marios presented a case for the GMC against a doctor accused of sending defamatory, racist and anti-Semitic correspondence to numerous lawyers, deans and others. He was successful in fendng off an argument on the admissabilty of some of the evidence and was succesful in his application to call rebuttal evidence against the doctor which proved the doctor had lied on oath.
GSCC v W & C
Marios was instructed to advise, prepare and present the much-publicised case against the Social Worker and Team Leader responsible for Peter Connelly (‘Baby P’). It was the first time the regulator sought to ‘join’ two registrants in a single hearing despite its rules not permitting it. Marios prepared detailed arguments and the hearing was ultimately ‘joined’ and both registrants ultimately accepted all the allegations that Marios had drafted against them.
GSCC v T
Marios appeared for a doctor who also sat in a judicial capacity referred to the GMC by the President of the Solicitors Regulatory Authority for allegedly sending misleading medical reports and not complying with Good Medical Practice where his tactical preperation and presentation might have an impact on the doctor’s ability to retain his judicial appointment.
We are delighted to announce that we have been shortlisted for 5 awards in the…
Chambers is delighted to have been shortlisted in 12 categories at the Legal 500 Bar…
Congratulations to Marios Lambis KC, winner of the Professional Disciplinary and Regulatory Silk of the…
