Disgusting Barristers in Hong Kong

I am lodging a formal complaint, as a member of the public, against Hong Kong Barrister Mr Barry Barlow SC  of Des Voeux Chambers, 38/F, Gloucester Tower, The Landmark, Central, H.K. ., for his blatant breach of  paragraphs 4.1(b)(ii), 4.1(b)(iii), 4.1(c), 4.1(d) & 10.34 of the Bar Code , in that he had, in handling a simple application to amend a Defence to add a Counterclaim, completely failed to act competently, in that (1) he did not know the amendment should be done in the red colour pursuant to paragraph 2 of Practice Direction 19.1; (2) he did not know the Court's leave was required because pleadings were closed; and (3) he did not know it should be done by way of inter parte summons, instead of ex parte. Mr Barry Barlow SC's ignorance in relation to this was worse than a PCLL student in a moot.  He was flagrantly incompetent and obviously so.  As a result of his flagrant incompetence, his client, Haldanes, had been ordered to pay indemnity costs in the sum of HK$12,

Wasted Costs Order Against Hong Kong Barrister James H M McGowan of Admiralty Chambers - HKSAR v Apelete [2019] 5 HKLRD 574 [2019] HKCA 1189 https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=125051&currpage=T 36. Before us, Mr McGowan candidly admitted that his actions (or lack thereof) were such as to bring him within the meaning of s.18 of the CCCO. In particular, he accepted that on his part there had been undue delay as well as a repeated failure to comply with the Court's directions, which amounted to serious professional misconduct. 47.  Whatever the position may have been in respect of funding, the applicant was legally aided as from 17 August 2018. There can be no excuse for either Mr Mohnani or Mr McGowan failing to comply with the Court's directions thereafter and no conceivable justification for allowing 7 months to go by from 12 September 2018 (the granting of yet another 21-day extension) until Mr McGowan's plea to be allowed to argue Ground 5 of