James is the Deputy Head of Mountford Chambers’ Regulatory Practice Group and is renowned for his extensive experience in fitness to practise and professional disciplinary matters. His reputation for strategic insight and meticulous advocacy has made him a trusted advisor in some of the most complex and sensitive regulatory cases.
James is regularly instructed by prominent professional regulators, including the Teaching Regulation Agency, Nursing and Midwifery Council, and Health and Care Professions Council, to present complex fitness to practise cases. During a two-and-a-half-year secondment at a top-ranked Band 1 firm, he represented regulators such as the General Optical Council, General Pharmaceutical Council, and Architect’s Registration Board in significant disciplinary matters.
A key advisor to many regulators, James is frequently called upon for his understanding of law, evidence, and procedure. His practice often involves advising on the investigation of misconduct allegations, particularly those that are complex or have far-reaching consequences. He is known for guiding regulators and panel firms through intricate investigations, ensuring that every stage of the disciplinary process is meticulously managed.
In addition to his work with regulators, James represents regulated professionals before disciplinary and other tribunals. His extensive experience spans the entire disciplinary process—from advising on investigations and representing clients in interim order applications, to handling final hearings and appeals. His ability to navigate the various stages of these cases, combined with his sharp legal acumen, makes him a formidable advocate in tribunals.
James has recently acted in significant cases involving a diverse range of professionals, including:
In addition to his work with professionals, James has increasingly been involved in cases where university students face disciplinary action, either from the university itself or from professional regulators. His ability to advise and represent students in these challenging and often high-stakes matters has become an important extension of his practice.
With his significant expertise and versatility, James remains a highly sought-after advocate in the field of professional discipline and regulatory compliance, regularly delivering positive results in some of the most demanding and high-stakes cases.
Architects
ARB v H
Case involving an architect’s online conduct towards other including potentially abusive correspondence.
ARB v S
Case involving alleged failures to have proper regard to regulations and elevation parameters, resulting in unsafe plans and civil liability.
ARB v C
Case involving alleged lack of integrity over the financial management of a project, including the advancing of undocumented loans between architect and client.
Barristers
BSB v X
Advising a barrister client on potential liability arising from a media arrangement, including advice on the terms of the BSB handbook and recent developments in respect of social media and news commentary.
Biomedical Scientists
HCPC v B
Case involving a biomedical scientist making homophobic remarks to colleagues and allegedly attending their place of work drunk, unfit to work.
HCPC v M
Case involving a biomedical scientist convicted of fraud.
Hearing Aid Dispensers
HCPC v P
Acted on behalf of the HCPC in case involving multiple allegations of dishonesty and manipulation of records.
Midwives & Nurses
NMC v B
Acted on behalf of a midwife accused of serious patient abuse. Secured the dismissal of all allegations at facts stage.
NMC v N
Acted on behalf of a midwife accused of multiple failings amounting to lack of competence during a return to work period following compassionate leave. Secured the dismissal of all allegations at facts stage.
NMC v M
Acted on behalf of a midwife who admitted to significant failings in respect of cardiotocography, contributing to patient death. Secured conditions of practice order following lengthy submissions on the clinical environment and remediation.
NMC v E
Case involving multiple allegations of lack of competence in ED setting.
NMC v B
Case involving allegations of poor medication monitoring and improper administration procedures in care home setting.
NMC v G
Case involving allegations of bullying, harassment and social media misuse.
NMC v M
Acted on behalf of the NMC, securing the striking off a nurse in a case involving the provision of care while under the influence of alcohol and multiple serious medication errors in care home setting.
NMC v H
Case involving alleged dishonesty on the part of a midwife who worked bank shifts through two agencies without disclosing the same to her employer, while in receipt of sick pay.
NMC v M
Acted for midwife, in interim order proceedings following Trust-level investigation and inquests launched into multiple deaths. No order made.
Occupational Therapists
HCPC v G
Acted on behalf of an OT accused of misconduct and lack of competence following dismissal from a Trust after a series of criticisms relating to record completion and data storage ranging fourteen years. Secured a finding of no current impairment.
HCPC v O
Case involving alleged dishonesty over declaration of criminal cautions decades before the OT qualified.
Operating Department Practitioners
HCPC v F
Acted for the HCPC in case involving ODP convicted of possessing child pornography.
Opticians
GOC v X
Case involving alleged misappropriation of documentation relating to dispensed products and harassment.
Paramedics
HCPC v Y
Acted for a paramedic previously dismissed from the service for alleged dishonesty relating to their ability to attend a red call without sufficient PPE. All allegations found not proven at facts stage.
HCPC v S
Acted for the HCPC in a case involving a paramedic’s response at the scene of a suicide.
HCPC v NS
Acted for the HCPC in a case involving a paramedic’s response to a patient in cardiac distress, and adverse comments made to the Regulator.
Physiotherapists
HCPC v F
Case involving male physiotherapist and alleged sexual misconduct toward female patient.
HCPC v K
Case involving male physiotherapist and alleged sexual misconduct toward female patient.
Daily Express ; The Metro ; International Business Times
Police Officers
Chief Constable of Sussex Police v Police Sergeant X
Case involving multiple allegations of abuse of position, dishonesty and failings in line-management.
IOPC v Police Constable Z
Investigation into officer’s conduct outside employment with the relevant police force.
Chief Constable of Sussex Police v Inspector Y
Case involving allegations of abuse of position and sexual misconduct.
Chief Constable of Sussex Police v Police Constable ZA
Case involving allegations of serious sexual misconduct.
Chief Constable of Sussex Police v Inspector AD
Acted for the Inspector in question, avoiding dismissal following finding of gross misconduct.
Chief Constable of Sussex Police v Police Constable AR
Case involving allegations of abuse of position and sexual misconduct.
Psychologists
HCPC v S
Case involving multiple allegations of historic sexual abuse.
Radiographers
HCPC v W
Acted for the HCPC in case involving a radiographer of self-administering drugs at their place of work and a conviction for theft of drugs and paraphernalia.
HCPC v H
Acted for HCPC in case involving a radiographer convicted of rape.
Social Workers
SWE v M
Acted of behalf of the social worker, successfully arguing against the imposition of an 18-month interim order pending completion of SWE’s investigation.
HCPC v Y
Social worker accused of multiple instances of lack of competence.
HCPC v Z
Acted for the HCPC in case involving social worker making and maintaining social media contact with vulnerable service users.
Speech and Language Therapists
HCPC v X
Lengthy case involving an SLT’s provision of care to primary school children. The case involved multiple allegations relating to the updating and monitoring of care plans, delivery of therapy, and issues surrounding dishonest completion of service user records.
Teachers
TRA v CA
Acted for the TRA in a case involving a teacher alleged to have inappropriately restrained pupils in a primary setting.
TRA v H
Case involving allegations of interference with student coursework and manipulation of assessment grades.
TRA v CB
Case involving convictions for serious sexual offences against children.
TRA v O
Case involving criminal conviction for serious sexual offences where issues of anonymity arose beyond the identities of pupils and staff.
TRA v A
Case involving allegations of a teacher’s inappropriate relationship with a pupil both in and outside of the school environment, including online contact and the pupil attending the teacher’s home on multiple occasions.
TRA v L
Acted for a teacher and avoided the imposition of a prohibition order following findings relating to the possession of child pornography.
James maintains a broad criminal defence practice, regularly acting in cases across the criminal spectrum, from serious violence to white collar and serious organised crime. In financial crime and fraud, he is often instructed to defence clients facing complex allegations of fraudulent trading, money laundering, and computer misuse. Known for his meticulous preparation and insight into financial regulations, James excels in cases involving vast amounts of digital evidence and financial data.
His expertise extends to serious drug offences and violent crime, where he has successfully defended clients in many demanding cases. James is often relied upon for his strategic insight and skilful cross-examination. Whether handling high-profile fraud cases or serious criminal charges, James’ commitment to his clients is evident in his attention to detail and relentless pursuit of the best possible outcomes.
In addition to his defence work, James is frequently instructed by prosecuting authorities including the Crown Prosecution Service, the RSPCA and the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. His prosecutorial work includes handling complex cases involving animal welfare, fraudulent trading, driving and licensing offences, and regulatory breaches. His ability to operate effectively on both sides of the criminal justice system is seen as a tactical significant advantage by many of his clients.
R v G and Ors [Operation Daylong] - Cambridge Crown Court
Leading Joseph Sinclair for the third of seven defendants in an HMRC prosecution relating to an alleged conspiracy to fraudulently evade duty payable on several million cigarettes.
R v R and B [Operation Junonia] – Hove Crown Court
Led by William England acting for the first defendant in case involving the largest illegal gun factory ever uncovered in the UK. The case involved the seizure of tens of live weapons from crime scenes across the UK, and the seizure of up to 150 partially-manufactured replica Browning pistols.
R v N - Central Criminal Court
Represented a well-known music artist charged with being in possession of a machete style knife, having been stopped with a quantity of drugs and cash. Following extensive cross-examination of police witnesses exposing significant flaws and gaps in the police investigation, the jury unanimously acquitted the defendant in just over an hour.
R v W and Others [Operation Warmth] – Stoke Crown Court
Led by Alexandra Scott acting for the second of six defendants in an eight-week money laundering trial involving an estimated £150m in cash transfers across the North-West and South-East involving EncroChat devices accessed through Operation Venetic. The case involved complex analysis of business activities and the use of a haulage business as a front for unlawful activity, and resulted in the seizure of tens of millions of pounds in cash.
R v K and Others [Operation Vault] – Teesside Crown Court
Junior alone acting for the second of twelve defendants in a large-scale drugs supply conspiracy involving the movement of Class A and Class B drugs and hundreds of thousands of pounds across the North-East and North-West.
R v A [Operation Preto] – Isleworth Crown Court
Secured acquittal after trial of defendant charged with possession of a weapon following an outbreak of street violence.
R v J [Operation Savoy] – Chelmsford Crown Court
Junior alone acting for the second of seven defendants charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by providing false witness statements to the Court of Appeal.
R v A – Reading Crown Court
Junior alone for defendant charged with possession with intent to supply Class A and B drugs.
R v H – Wood Green Crown Court
Secured acquittal of defendant charged with racially aggravated assault on security guard at supermarket.
R v M – Kingston Crown Court
Secured acquittal after trial of defendant charged with coercive and controlling behaviour, spanning multiple accusations over the course of almost two years.
R v J – Liverpool Crown Court
Junior alone acting for defendant charged with s.18 gbh and weapons possession offences following incident involving the partial amputation of a victim’s face.
R v H – Inner London Crown Court
Successful appeal against a Magistrates’ Court conviction for possession of an offensive weapon. Separately secured suspended sentence on multiple counts of theft, fraud, violence and public disorder.
James maintains a busy practice in fraud, business crime, and asset recovery and is known for his meticulous handling of cases involving corporate liability, fraudulent trading, and money laundering offences. He is particularly trusted in complex cases that involve extensive financial records and intricate accountancy data, where his analytical skills and attention to detail have been praised consistently.
James regularly acts on behalf of both corporates and individuals facing serious allegations of fraud, applying his expertise in navigating financial crime investigations. His advisory practice extends to ensuring businesses and charities remain compliant with critical regulatory frameworks, including anti-money laundering procedures, anti-bribery rules, and data protection regimes. His ability to provide strategic compliance advice makes him a go-to for entities looking to mitigate risk in an increasingly regulated environment.
Before joining Mountford Chambers, James gained invaluable experience at a leading City firm, where he played a significant role in SFO investigations involving financial institutions and insider trading. Since then, he has advised multinational corporations on SFO investigations into global trading arrangements.
In addition to his defence work, James frequently acts as prosecution for the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency in criminal matters, tackling fraud involving driving licences and falsification of records. He also has extensive experience in cases involving the possession, manufacture, and sale of articles used in fraud, enhancing his tactical understanding of both the defence and prosecution sides of financial and business crime.
R v E – Southwark Crown Court
James is currently instructed to act for the first defendant in the FCA’s first ‘finfluencer’ prosecution, relating to prosecutions under ss.19 and 21 FSMA 2000 following the alleged unauthorised provision of advice relating to the purchase of contracts for difference (CFDs) and unauthorised communication of financial promotions.
R v AB – Mold Crown Court
James acted for an Emirati director of a company who had been convicted by a Magistrates’ Court of offences where it was said the director was the directing mind and bore responsibility for corporate failures to provide information and comply with statutory requirements. The appeal of the conviction was successful, and the director’s liability ‘reversed’.
R v N and Ors – Southwark Crown Court
James acted as junior alone for the second of five defendants in a case an alleged fraud resulting in approximately £300,000 of loss in which identities were stolen following a string of mobile phone thefts. The case involved alleged sophisticated phishing attacks and identity spoofing including securing loans in the names of victims.
R v P – Ipswich Crown Court
Junior alone acting for defendant charged with fraudulent trading over a two-and-a-half-year period. A case involving extensive forensic accountancy evidence over the trading period and allegations of fraudulent dispensing of cheques and payments.
Page and Ors v The Financial Conduct Authority [2022] UKUT 124 (TCC)
Junior alone acting for four of five appellants of FCA decision notices and prohibitions. The case was one of the most substantial to be considered by the Upper Tribunal in recent years, relating to the transfer of c.1,500 retail customer pensions (totalling over £60 million) into loan notes and bonds being promoted by an unrelated entity.
Media Coverage:
The Financial Times ; FT Advisor
Practical Law
Law360
Money Marketing
R v B – Southwark Crown Court
Second junior to Andrew Trollope QC representing first defendant in the later stages of a five-defendant MTIC-type fraud relating to metals trading.
Appeal: [2020] EWCA Crim 1596
SFO v Company X – Investigation
Advisory appointment during the currency of a Serious Fraud Office investigation into global metals trading. Required to advise a multi-national company on exposure and engagement with the SFO’s investigation.
R v O – Maidstone Crown Court
Junior alone in case involving multiple allegations of holding and converting criminal property.
R v E – Southwark Crown Court
Secured acquittal of defendant charged with possession of articles for use in fraud on the Crown offering no evidence following representations on disclosure.
R v K – Sevenoaks Magistrates’ Court
Secured discontinuance of proceedings for possession of articles for use in fraud in case involving alleged loop devices used for bank card cloning.
James has experience across Mountford Chambers’ regulatory practice areas, and is frequently called upon to advise and act for regulated individuals and businesses across a range of industries.
Data Protection and GDPR
James is well-versed in the field of data protection; he is our designated Equality and Diversity Data officer in Chambers. James’ advisory practice includes advising regulated individuals and companies on the obligations under the UK Data Protection Regime, and investigations by the ICO. His recent experience includes advising a large national charity of the redrafting of data protection and retention policies, and the processing of data in respect of private prosecutions.
He is frequently called upon to advise upon data protection in the context of criminal proceedings, and has advised individuals and UK police forces on the remit and limitations of the UK DPA and GDPR regimes.
Finance and banking
James has significant experience in financial regulation. Prior to joining Chambers, he gains experience in a City firm in past business reviews of financial institutions, particularly looking at COBS compliance, and was involved in ‘skilled person’ reviews (under s.166 FSMA 2000) instigated by the UK Financial Conduct Authority into alleged mis-selling of interest rate hedging products by a major retail bank, and an investigation into mis-management of investment portfolios.
James is currently instructed to act for the first defendant in the FCA’s first ‘finfluencer’ prosecution, relating to prosecutions under ss.19 and 21 FSMA 2000 following the alleged unauthorised provision of advice relating to the purchase of contracts for difference (CFDs) and unauthorised communication of financial promotions. Financial Times
James’ recent article on the similar scheme relating to the promotion of cryptoassets can be found here.
James acted as junior alone for four of five applicants in Page & Ors v Financial Conduct Authority [2022] UKUT 124 (TCC); one of the largest Upper Tribunal cases of recent years, relating to the transfer of c.1,500 retail customer pensions (totalling over £60 million) into loan notes and bonds being promoted by an unrelated entity. The case involved: detailed consideration of IFA duties in respect of products; due diligence; duties relating to outsourced activities and conflicts of interest; the requirements of honesty and integrity for regulated IFAs; limitation; and de facto directorship.
Driving and vehicle safety
James is frequently instructed to prosecute cases before the criminal courts brought by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency involving the fraudulent obtaining or use of driving licences and falsification of driving records.
He is experienced in a range of vehicle safety regulations, and has also been instructed on behalf of individuals and corporates appearing in Traffic Commissioner proceedings.
James has a busy confiscation and asset recovery practice.
In criminal confiscation matters, James accepts and is often called upon to undertake advisory work in respect of both the 2002 and 1988 Acts. He is frequently praised for his forensic approach to the confiscation process, being instructed in many cases after the conclusion of complex criminal proceedings to ‘unpick’ financial affairs in contested POCA proceedings.
James is experience in acting for and advises both defendants and interested parties in applications for the re-consideration of confiscation orders, and enforcement of orders including:
In respect of civil recovery of assets, James has been involved in several cases where account freezing orders and cash forfeiture have been in play. He has successfully resisted many cash forfeiture proceedings and been praised for his thorough approach. With a background in financial regulation, and significant experience in complex financial cases, he is able to advise clients on most aspects of civil recovery, including the recovery of cryptoassets.
National Crime Agency v Companies J1 and J2 – Westminster Magistrates' Court
Acted on behalf of two linked companies in account freezing order applications made by the NCA following the instigation of criminal proceedings relating to bribery and money laundering.
Essex Police v B – Chelmsford Magistrates' Court
Successfully opposed an application by Essex Police for the continued detention of seized cash following the seizure of approximately £20,000 in sterling and similar amounts in two other currencies at Stansted airport.
R v J – Central Criminal Court
Acted for an interested party, opposing an application to appoint an enforcement receiver over the matrimonial home. Successfully rebutted the presumption of joint equitable title, and established that the defendant’s equitable title had been extinguished over the course of the marriage and multiple re-mortgages: no receiver appointed.
R v B – Kingston Crown Court
Acted for an interested party in a contested application to appoint enforcement receivers over a property portfolio. Successfully argued the existence of beneficial title of the interested party, avoiding the appointment.
R v R – Leicester Crown Court
Contested POCA matter. Benefit figure reduced from £340,000 to £50,000 after legal argument seeking to depart from a previously agreed (higher) figure.
R v R – Derby Crown Court
Contested POCA matter. Benefit figure reduced from £90,000 to £20,000
R v R – York Crown Court
Contested s.23 application following further investigation a number of years after the order was made.
R v J – Harrow Crown Court
Successful (opposed) s.11 POCA application
R v S – Reading Crown Court
Successful (opposed) s.11 POCA application
R v D – Westminster Magistrates’ Court
Successfully resisted application to activate default sentence where defendant owed in excess of £200,000
R v G – Westminster Magistrates’ Court
Successfully resisted application to activate default sentence where defendant owed in excess of £650,000
R v B – Westminster Magistrates’ Court
Successfully resisted application to activate default sentence where defendant owed in excess of £450,000
James’ practice increasingly involves technology and artificial intelligence regulation, and he is extending his practice into advising on the legal and regulatory challenges posed by rapid advancements in technology, particularly AI.
His work in this field spans key areas such as regulatory compliance, privacy law, and the ethical implications of AI. James regularly advises corporations and regulated professionals on the complex legal frameworks governing AI implementation, ensuring that their operations align with evolving regulatory standards. He is particularly sought after to assist in navigating the intersection of technology and law, offering insights on the legal ramifications of AI, including issues surrounding data protection, cybersecurity breaches, privacy and the use of AI in fraud. His expertise extends to disputes where AI technologies impact business practices, providing both legal advice and proactive guidance on maintaining compliance with regulatory authorities.
James’ recent engagements include advising corporates on the use of AI in business, addressing the ethical concerns associated with AI decision-making, and representing clients in cases where the integration or use of AI has led to legal disputes.
His ability to grasp both the technical and legal complexities of AI has made him a trusted advisor in a field where the regulatory landscape is rapidly evolving.
Healthcare
James has significant experience of healthcare regulation, having acted for several healthcare regulators including the NMC, GDC, GPhC, COG and HCPC and also regulated professionals across a range of tribunals. His significant experience in healthcare regulation has resulted in James being instructed in several complex cases involving potential clinical negligence and serious procedural failures.
Health and safety
James’ experience in the regulation of other sectors such as rail and air provide a wide range of expertise in the field of health and safety, which clients consider invaluable in inquests. He has recently appeared in an inquest touching upon these areas of expertise; potential NHS failings leading to a death on a railway, and is available to advise and provide representation generally.
Safeguarding
James frequently acts in professional discipline cases involving young and vulnerable people. He has acted for the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) in a number of cases where safeguarding concerns played a central role. Similarly, he has acted in many cases before healthcare regulators in which patient and service user safeguarding failures have resulted in catastrophic outcomes. He is a member of the Sports Resolutions Safeguarding Case Management Panel.
Financial investigations and past business reviews (PBRs)
James has acted as an independent reviewer in past business reviews of financial institutions, particularly relating to COBS compliance. He has been involved in ‘skilled person’ reviews (under s.166 FSMA 2000) instigated by the UK Financial Conduct Authority into alleged mis-selling of interest rate hedging products by a major retail bank, and investigations into mis-management of investment portfolios.
Extradition
James has acted in a number of cases involving the in- and out-bound extradition of those facing criminal proceedings. He is often asked to advise on the process and procedure in respect of those abroad and facing extradition to the UK, and has acted in a number of cases in the UK opposing the extradition of individuals to requesting states.
James has also acted in proceedings relating to the issuing of arrest warrants in the UK, and advises on appeals.
Extradition
United States of America v M
Accusation extradition request relating to internet-based alleged criminality.
Poland v J
Extradition request for RP based upon conviction for fraud offences.
UK Crown Prosecution Service v W
Successfully opposed a CPS request for a European Arrest Warrant to be issued in respect of a suspect charged with causing death by dangerous driving.
Romania v S
EAW extradition request following conviction under Articles 329 and 13 of the Romanian Penal Code.
Greece v E
EAW accusation request following conviction for dishonesty offences.
Greece v U
EAW extradition request following conviction in absence for fatal offence.
Poland v M
EAW extradition request for RP said to have escaped from prison.
France v G-P
EAW extradition request following conviction in absence for cross-jurisdictional smuggling offences.
Education
Scholarships/Awards
Professional Regulation
Regulatory Compliance
Extradition
James is the appointed Diversity Data Officer at Mountford Chambers.
James Lloyd appeared for the student respondent in a disciplinary hearing before the Taxation Disciplinary Board in a case centred…
James Lloyd discusses the judgment handed down on 6 June 2025 in Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar…
James Lloyd, leading Joseph Sinclair, acted for the third of seven defendants in a case involving conspiracy to fraudulently evade…