Reprimand for barrister who encouraged client to seek out damaging information about fellow counsel

Print This Post

27 July 2016


Internet search: barrister told client to keep quiet

Internet search: barrister told client to keep quiet

A barrister who encouraged a client to search online for damaging information about another member of the Bar, and then told her to deny that he had done so, has been reprimanded by a Bar disciplinary tribunal.

It is the second reprimand from a tribunal for Mohammed Omar Faruk, who was called 1996, in eight months.

The tribunal ruling said he was “found to have failed to act with integrity in that, in the course of a telephone conversation with Ms X a client whom he had previously represented and who had also previously been represented by Mr Y, a barrister and professional colleague, invited Ms X to look up the name of Mr Y on the internet well knowing that, when she did so, she would learn of matters which for Mr Y, had involved a matter of personal tragedy, but which Mr Faruk believed nonetheless would tend to damage his reputation in the eyes of Ms X and that Mr Faruk acted with the intention of causing such damage and laughed when doing so”.

Further, Mr Faruk “failed to act with honesty, alternatively failed to act with integrity, in that in the course of a telephone conversation with Ms X referred to above, having invited Ms X to look up the name of Mr Y on the internet, Mr Faruk told Ms X that the conversation was “confidential” and should you ever be asked about it, you would deny that it had taken place”.

Mr Faruk was reprimanded and fined £500, although the decision is still open to appeal.

Last November, Mr Faruk was reprimanded and fined £300 after admitting that he had talked to jurors at Basildon Railway Station after a trial where he had appeared before them, and asked them about the basis for their verdict.

However, though this was in breach of his duty to the court in the administration of justice, the tribunal heard that the conversation was unintentional.



Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

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

Legal Futures Blog

The importance of being expert

Steve Rowley 3

I recently sat on a panel debate in Manchester, with the debate entitled – ATE insurers and sub-£250k claims. Whilst the title of the debate was probably written ahead of the government’s consultation paper to introducing fixed recoverable costs in lower-value clinical negligence claims, where £25,000 rather than £250,000 is being recommended, it nevertheless raised an interesting point on how after-the-event insurers can make premiums proportionate to damages, especially for cases worth less than £25,000.

April 26th, 2017