Forty Years of Legal Insights: A Conversation with Gareth Rees

How did your legal journey begin, and what drew you to the Bar, particularly criminal and fraud work?

When I passed the Bar exams in 1979, the profession looked very different. Far fewer people qualified as barristers, and public school boys still dominated the Bar. Entry depended heavily on who you knew. Despite that, a law qualification was as relevant then as it is now.

Publicly funded work was changing. Legal aid had expanded access to advice and representation, and by the 1990s the criminal Bar had grown significantly. It had also become a reasonably lucrative career. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 modernised police powers and the treatment of suspects, improving the criminal justice system for everyone.

After a short period as a journalist, I began practising in crime. Within 10 years, I was dealing with serious cases, often as junior counsel in homicide prosecutions and high-profile matters such as the Brinks Matt robbery. Over time, I became increasingly drawn to financial crime. Money laundering, bribery, and insider dealing were becoming more prominent, and the SFO was now actively prosecuting them. I often defended in those cases. I took Silk in 2003 and focused on large-scale fraud trials, usually at Southwark Crown Court, with murder cases forming only a small part of my practice.

Why did you decide to join the FRC, given your established position at the Bar?

I was instructed to act for the FRC, and around the same time the Executive Counsel role became available. The position involved investigating and prosecuting accountants and auditors responsible for preparing financial statements for large companies. These were cases that affected the UK public interest, which made the role compelling.

By 2012, I was in my mid-50s. Most barristers at that stage face a simple choice. Stay at the Bar or become a judge. I had no interest in becoming a judge, and I wanted a new challenge. Joining the FRC let me use the same legal skills in a completely different environment. I had to run a team, hire staff, sit on committees, report to the Board and build an enforcement function capable of investigating and prosecuting organisations, including the Big Four accountancy firms. Taking an adversarial position against the Big Four was demanding, but we had good resources, and I enjoyed the regulatory litigation.

What do you consider your legacy as Director of Enforcement?

When I arrived in 2012, the enforcement team was small and couldn't handle the required workload. Some colleagues were excellent, and we hired strong lawyers and accountants who helped us build credibility. I am most proud of building that team.

By 2016, we succeeded in three audit cases involving the Big Four. The significance wasn't the cases themselves, but the shift in attitude. The firms recognised that when audit standards fell short, settlement might be preferable to the cost and delay of fighting a case before an FRC Tribunal. We made mistakes along the way, but we created an enforcement team that remains an effective regulator within a wider enforcement landscape.

What is your view on the direction of regulatory bodies, given concerns that harsh scrutiny deters people from entering professions such as audit?

This concern is common among auditors and large financial organisations. They argue that robust enforcement, large fines and career-threatening sanctions are counterproductive. They say regulators should work collaboratively to help firms understand mistakes so they can improve.

My response was always the same. I did not make the rules. Government and Parliament increasingly favour strict enforcement. If rules exist and we have clear evidence of breaches, we have a responsibility to act. The challenge is striking the right balance, whether at the FCA or the FRC.

This debate was particularly difficult because almost nothing had happened in the past. Audit regulation barely existed before 2006, and progress was limited by the time I became Executive Counsel. There will always be cases where firms get it badly wrong. If a company collapses and public concern is significant, regulators must act. Carillion is a recent example.

You later worked at two US law firms. What motivated that move into private practice?

I stayed at the FRC until 2017. By then, I was over 60 and needed to decide where my career was heading. I could have returned to the Bar, but many solicitor friends were working at US firms, and I was curious. I joined King and Spalding LLP, then Morrison Foerster LLP, and worked on major global investigations that required extensive travel across Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and the US. I would never have had that experience at the Bar.

Very few barristers take roles like these. You can shift into solicitor work, but the earlier you do it, the easier it is to learn the systems and procedures. After decades as a barrister, I still didn't know what junior solicitors were trained on from the start. It was an interesting challenge, especially considering that when I began my career, a barrister could breach professional conduct rules simply by entering a solicitor's office.

What drew you back to the Bar?

Returning to the Bar was an easy decision. US firms expect partners to retire at 65, and the demands of billable hours make it difficult to maintain balance. I retired from MoFo on excellent terms and returned to a profession where I have many long-standing friends. I can continue practising without the pressures of a large firm. It is my comfort zone, and I am excited about the possibilities.

The Bar has long been criticised as inaccessible. Have you experienced this, and are barriers lower today?

The Bar has changed dramatically. In the 1980s, pupillage candidates were judged largely on their school and university. Diversity and Inclusion policies have increased the number of women qualifying, and the judiciary is more diverse. There are now more women judges at the Old Bailey than men, which is extraordinary.

Maternity leave remains a challenge for women in any profession, but efforts are being made to reduce its impact. Today, men and women qualify as barristers and solicitors in equal numbers, but fewer women reach partner level or take Silk. The reasons are complex and unresolved.

The publicly funded Bar faces a different problem. Legal aid fees have been reduced, making it difficult for those without financial support to sustain a career in criminal practice. There are also far more qualified students than pupillages. Many young lawyers are discouraged and fail to qualify. Pupillage must be secured within five years of completing legal studies. This needs careful management. At the FRC, we introduced pupillages and trainee solicitor roles. One of those trainees is now General Counsel at a major financial firm.

The rising cost of the LPC, SQE and Bar course adds further pressure. Qualifying as a lawyer is challenging and requires determination.

Do you prefer acting for defendants or claimants?

I have prosecuted and defended throughout my career. At the FRC, I prosecuted exclusively. I enjoy defending, but the real skill lies in being able to do both. Whether civil, criminal, or regulatory litigation, you follow the law and fight on the evidence.

The rules should lead to the right outcome, but criminal barristers rarely concern themselves with guilt or innocence. Shakespeare captured it perfectly in The Taming of the Shrew: do as adversaries do in law, strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.

That is exactly how it works. You fight hard in court, then leave as friends.