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


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

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Email address will not be published.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.

Reports

Our latest special report, produced in association with Temple Legal Protection, looks at the role of after-the-event (ATE) insurance in commercial litigation post-LASPO. We are at a time when insurers, solicitors, clients and litigation funders work ever more closely to create funding packages that work for all of them, with conditional fee and even damages-based agreements now part of many law firms’ armoury.

Blog

10 October 2019

How much is your SEO budget?

If the answer is ‘what SEO budget?’, then we have a major problem. Building a website is like putting up a fancy electronic billboard in the middle of the desert. SEO is the action of driving people to look at it.

Read More

Loading animation