Sweeting: Appeal without merit
A barrister disbarred for supervising an immigration firm whose registration had been cancelled by the Immigration Advice Agency has failed in his appeal against the decision.
Mr Justice Sweeting said a Bar disciplinary tribunal’s decision that James Patrick Dean showed “a clear lack of honesty and integrity” was a factual finding, “well within its remit and supported by the evidence, including Mr Dean’s own admissions”.
Mr Dean, who was called in 1977, was disbarred last year following co-operation by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) – now the Immigration Advice Authority – Bar Standards Board (BSB) and Solicitors Regulation Authority in investigating Ebrahim & Co Asian Legal Advisory Centre.
OISC cancelled its registration in September 2017 following complaints of poor service. However, the company continued to work with clients on immigration matters under the supervision of Mr Dean, then of Goldsmiths Chambers.
The BSB initially decided such a supervision arrangement was legal but complaints of poor service against Ebrahim & Co continued and, following OISC lobbying, the BSB changed its rules in 2019 to prevent barristers from supervising immigration firms whose registration had been cancelled.
Ebrahim & Co appealed against the cancellation but the First-tier Tribunal rejected this in 2020, a decision upheld by the Upper Tribunal.
The disciplinary tribunal found that Mr Dean had also confirmed to the BSB and OISC in February 2020 that he had ceased supervising Ebrahim & Co, when in reality he had not.
Sweeting J said that “sadly, given Mr Dean’s long experience at the Bar”, the procedural history of his appeal revealed “a pattern of delay and obscurity in the articulation of his grounds of appeal”.
He had only provided grounds of appeal a fortnight before the hearing and the judge went on: “By the time of the hearing before me he had not filed a skeleton argument and made his submissions without one.
“Despite the fact that his oral submissions spanned well over an hour I did not find his arguments at all easy to follow.”
Sweeting J gave short shrift to each of Mr Dean’s four grounds of appeal. The first was that the Upper Tribunal made “findings favourable to the immigration caseworkers”, which should have had a “significant impact” on his disciplinary hearing.
The judge said: “Mr Dean’s contention that there was a ‘positive’ decision from the UT is fundamentally mistaken as to the outcome of the proceeding.” In any event, the charges against him concerned the firm, not the individuals.
Second, the Bar tribunal’s decision to refuse to adjourn Mr Dean’s hearing was “plainly a case management decision”, falling within its discretion.
“Mr Dean’s significant and acknowledged delay in preparing for his appeal and seeking representation was not conducive to a request for an adjournment.”
Sweeting J said that Mr Dean’s third argument that he “could not have supervised” Ebrahim & Co because the firm had ceased trading after being deregistered by the OISC, and he was acting on behalf of a ‘new entity’, lacked cogency.
“Mr Dean’s attempt to redefine the entity he supervised does not alter the fundamental finding that he facilitated unregulated immigration advice after the firm’s registration was cancelled, a core breach of his professional obligations.”
Finally, Sweeting J said Mr Dean’s “assertion of disproportionate sanction” was “unsupported by any specific arguments identifying exceptional circumstances, which might suggest a departure from the strong presumption of disbarment for dishonesty” and the Bar tribunal was “entitled to find that no such exceptional circumstances existed”.
He dismissed Mr Dean’s appeal against disbarment, describing it as “without merit”.
