Barrister reprimanded for talking to lay opponent without their lawyer


Barrister: Wasted costs order

A barrister whose actions in speaking to the opposing lay client in the absence of their lawyer led a court to adjourn a hearing has been sanctioned by a disciplinary tribunal.

Mariam El-Sobky failed in her duty to the court, and diminished the trust and confidence the public places in her and the profession, according to a ruling of the Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service.

The barrister, called in 2001, was acting for the respondent in family law proceedings. Two days before a hearing in May 2019, she went to the home where both the applicant and respondent lived and spoke to the applicant about the proceedings in the absence of their lawyer.

As a result, the hearing was adjourned and Ms El-Sobky fixed with a wasted costs order.

She then failed to report to the Bar Standards Board “that she had committed serious misconduct”, the summary ruling said.

She was reprimanded in relation to her future conduct, fined £2,000 and ordered to pay costs of £1,560.

In addition, the tribunal ordered that she shadow an experienced practitioner for six months and that person should then submit to the BSB a certificate of competence.

The reasoning behind the ruling, which is currently open to appeal, will be published in the coming weeks.

It is the second time Ms El-Sobky has been before a disciplinary tribunal in little over a year.

In March 2020, she was reprimanded and fined £3,000 for failing to comply with a court order to pay a builder she had used and then instructing solicitors to write to the claimant company to say she was not aware of the order and had not been served with a claim form, when that was not correct.

Though the tribunal accepted that Ms El-Sobky’s admissions of recklessness amounted to one of dishonesty, it decided against the standard sanction of disbarment on the basis that “her personal circumstances put her under increasing pressure, leading to the relevant conduct”.




    Readers Comments

  • Saras says:

    Interesting how regulators pick on the little guys to make their jobs neccessary for society or the Public whilst they let the biggest crooks in the legal peofession go scot free.


Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog


Conveyancers: are you afraid of outsourcing?

For many years, outsourcing has been seen as a bit of a scary prospect within the conveyancing sector. But thanks to the stamp duty holiday, conveyancers are now realising some of the many benefits.


You win some, you lose some – class actions post Google

In November, Google received two court rulings, through which it both closed and opened the door to class actions against it. So what do the decisions mean for future class actions?


Clinical negligence, a changing market – part 1

The consolidation of law firms through merger and acquisition has resulted in fewer, but more sophisticated and expert clinical negligence practices.


Loading animation