Barrister sanctioned for own fundamentally dishonest PI claim


Bradford court: Fundamental dishonesty ruling

A non-practising barrister who had his personal injury claim thrown out as fundamentally dishonest has been banned for returning to practice for nine months.

Victor Adiamah was also found to have held himself out as a practising barrister in the witness statement that formed part of his claim for damages.

Mr Adiamah, who was called in 2012, discontinued his claim for compensation after a road traffic accident without explaining the discrepancies between his own case and the other driver’s unchallenged evidence.

But the judge at Bradford Combined Court Centre in March 2019 found that the barrister had been fundamentally dishonest, meaning that he lost the protection of qualified one-way costs shifting that personal injury claimants otherwise have in the event their claims are unsuccessful.

Those found guilty of fundamental dishonesty can also be pursued for contempt of court.

A Bar disciplinary tribunal found that Mr Adiamah had behaved in a way which could reasonably be seen by the public to undermine his honesty.

Further, by holding himself out as a practising barrister when he was not authorised to do so, he had behaved in a way which was likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in him or in the profession, the tribunal said.

It decided he should be prevented from applying for a practising certificate for nine months as a result.

A spokesman for the Bar Standards Board said: “Behaving in a way which leads a judge to describe you as fundamentally dishonest and holding yourself out as a practising barrister when you are not entitled to do so are serious matters.

“The tribunal’s decision to prevent Mr Adiamah from applying for a practising certificate for nine months reflects the expectation that barristers are not only honest but are seen to act honestly, including when they appear as a party to a case.”

The tribunal’s decision is open to appeal.




    Readers Comments

  • Jim Holloway says:

    “Behaving in a way which leads a judge to describe you as fundamentally dishonest and holding yourself out as a practising barrister when you are not entitled to do so are serious matters.”

    So serious that a non-practicing barrister is told hw won’t be allowed to practice for another nine months….

    That’ll teach him.

  • Stephen David Gowland says:

    I have always agreed in principle with this sanction, however it should apply to all sides in any litigation. Having exposed my local authority Durham County Council on BBC inside out for altering inspection records to try and defend a highways claim, I firmly believe defendants should be subject to this too.


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


Will the SQE affect diversity in the legal profession?

Law firms are under increasingly pressure to attract a more diverse pool of young lawyers. One of the fundamental motivations behind introducing the SQE was to address this issue.


Should the SRA introduce tougher sanctions for AML breaches?

We have recently seen the Solicitors Regulation Authority fining law firms across England and Wales over a lack of proper anti-money laundering policies and procedures.


EHCPs and the uphill struggle for justice

The staggering truth behind the education system supporting children with special education needs and disabilities is that 80% of SEND children don’t receive the regular in-school support they need.


Loading animation