Invoices: Barrister used chambers header
A barrister who misled a client into thinking he was working through chambers when he was not – so as to avoid paying rent on the income – has been disbarred.
A Bar disciplinary tribunal rejected Ravi Sidhu’s contention that he had made a genuine mistake, finding his actions “blatantly dishonest” instead.
The tribunal made its decision last year but its full ruling has only recently been published.
It recorded that Mr Sidhu, who was called in 1988 and working at the time from Citadel Chambers in Birmingham, was instructed in May 2021 via a solicitor to represent a Ms Rees on the inquest into her mother’s death.
She told the tribunal that she had felt physically sick when she rang Citadel in May 2022 – after Mr Sidhu had said he intended to retire – and was told it had no record of her case.
Up to that point Mr Sidhu had sent five invoices which purported to be from Citadel, when in fact he undertook the work in a personal capacity. He waived the last one but Ms Rees paid £44,085 directly into Mr Sidhu’s personal bank account.
This would have resulted in a payment of more than £6,000 to Citadel for rent and expenses, a sum he eventually paid when the matter came to light.
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) alleged that Mr Sidhu’s actions were deliberate. He argued it was an honest and genuine mistake on his part that arose out of confusion between fees to which he was entitled when sitting in the past as an assistant coroner, on which no chambers expenses were paid, and fees paid through his practice as a barrister.
However, when the tribunal asked him to provide examples of invoices he had sent out for coronial work, Mr Sidhu was unable to do so. This “appeared to undermine” his defence of a single and honest mistake.
It added: “We also take into account that approximately one year earlier Mr Sidhu had been asked to represent a client on a direct access basis involving a coronial matter and that on that occasion, the case had been disclosed to and authorised by chambers.
“In those circumstances it is hard to understand how a genuine mistake arose in relation to the payment of chambers expenses when Mr Sidhu accepted instructions via a solicitor in May 2021 to advise and represent Ms Rees.”
Finding him dishonest, the tribunal said Mr Sidhu’s motivation was to avoid paying chambers the money he owed in respect of the fees received from Ms Rees.
“If there had been any uncertainty on his part about the arrangement we are satisfied that an honest professional in his position would have made enquiries of chambers as to the right way to proceed.”
Further, “by sending invoices on chambers headed notepaper, Mr Sidhu clearly created the impression (which was highly misleading) that the invoices were validated by chambers and that chambers stood behind the demands for payment of the invoices which were submitted.
“In our unanimous opinion we are satisfied that Mr Sidhu’s actions were blatantly dishonest.”
In mitigation, Mr Sidhu said he had last worked in 2024 and was now drawing a modest pension.
He apologised to Ms Rees for the position she found herself in following her call to chambers and noted both the waiver of his final invoice and payment to chambers. He submitted character references too.
However, the tribunal concluded that “the only option” here was disbarment. “Nothing else reflects the seriousness of the conduct having regard to the sanctions guidance.”
A BSB spokesman said: “Clients and fellow barristers are right to expect members of the Bar to act with honesty in their interactions and any departure from this is a serious matter. This is reflected in the decision of the tribunal to disbar Mr Sidhu.”
Leave a Comment