Former barrister and judge wins disbarment appeal

Print This Post

8 October 2014


inns of court

Bar ruling: fresh disciplinary tribunal must be held

Rabi Sukul, a former barrister accused of drafting false grounds of appeal for a young criminal client, has won the right to a fresh disciplinary tribunal hearing on whether or not he should have been disbarred.

At an ex tempore High Court hearing last week, Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Cranston allowed his appeal in part, on the grounds that he should have been allowed to make representations in mitigation.

According to a Lawtel report of the hearing, Laws LJ and Cranston J held that although Mr Sukul had “no belief” in his grounds for appeal and this was “very serious”, it was “not necessarily at the top range of the behaviour within the code of conduct”.

The judges ruled that the Bar disciplinary tribunal should “at the very least” have considered whether Mr Sukul, who had retired from practice and was living abroad, should be allowed to make representations.

At the time of the incident, Mr Sukul practised from Balham Chambers in London but since July 2013 had been a justice of appeal in Guyana, a post from which he resigned as a result of the disbarrment, according to local media reports.

At a Bar disciplinary tribunal in February this year, Mr Sukul was found to have engaged in conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute “by creating a document entitled ‘application to appeal against conviction’ that was false and he knew it was false”. He appealed against the sentence of disbarment.

He was also found to have “recklessly misled the court” by “allowing or inducing the court to believe that an application for leave to appeal against conviction was a true document, and that there were genuine grounds of appeal, when he knew that there were no such grounds of appeal and he failed to notify the Court of Appeal of this fact”.

Mr Sukul was suspended from practice for nine months for the second offence, but did not appeal against this part of the ruling.

The tribunal heard that Mr Sukul’s client had been found guilty of drugs-related offences at Snaresbrook Crown Court and sentenced to a Young Offenders Institute.

Having originally praised the tribunal for making “absolutely the right decision”, a Bar Standards Board spokesman said yesterday: “The charges against Mr Sukul remain proved as his appeal was against his sentence, in respect of the first charge only. The level of sanction imposed is entirely a matter for the independent disciplinary tribunals to decide and we look forward to assisting the fresh tribunal panel in due course.”

Tags: , ,



Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

All comments will be moderated before posting. Please see our Terms and Conditions

Legal Futures Blog

Rating lawyers by their wins and losses – a good idea?

Robert Ambrogi

Lawyers will give you any number of reasons why their win-loss rates in court are not accurate reflections of their legal skills. Yet a growing number of companies are evaluating lawyers by this standard – compiling and analysing lawyers’ litigation track records to help consumers and businesses make more-informed hiring decisions. The shortcomings of evaluating lawyers by win rates are many. Not least of them is that so few cases ever make it to a win or loss. Of equal concern is that, in the nuances of law practice, it is not always obvious what constitutes a win or a loss.

February 22nd, 2017