Munich: Solicitor did not admit where he really was
A solicitor who “wasted valuable court time” by telling a recorder that he was in London when he was actually in Munich has been struck off.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) said Priyank Tanwar was not acting in “a moment of madness” because his “misleading responses” were sustained over the course of the hearing at Leicester Family Court.
“His behaviour made the conduct of the hearing more difficult and other parties were affected.”
The SDT said misleading a judge was “misconduct of the highest order” and Mr Tanwar was “neither truthful nor persuasive” when giving evidence to the tribunal. Nor did he show “any insight into the nature or effect of his misconduct”.
Mr Tanwar, who qualified in 2010, acted for Person A, the father, in private family law proceedings.
The court made an order in July 2023 listing the matter for a final contested in-person hearing on 24 August before Recorder Matthew O’Grady.
There were communication issues during the hearing and Mr Tanwar, a self-employed consultant at Glen Solicitors, told the judge that he was at the firm’s offices in Ealing, London, which was why he could not attend the hearing in person.
The SDT said that, on at least four occasions, Mr Tanwar confirmed that he was located at the firm’s offices when he was not.
“This caused a delay in progressing the case as there was then a period where the court sought to make contact with Mr Tanwar by way of the landline at the office, to improve the connection via CVP [Cloud Video Platform] and communications at the hearing.”
Mr Tanwar argued that he genuine believed the recorder “was trying to establish his credentials as a representative, and therefore it was appropriate for him to respond to the recorder’s questions about his whereabouts with details of the firm’s office location”.
The SDT rejected this. It was “crystal clear” from Mr Tanwar’s exchanges with the judge that he “sought to give the misleading impression that he was at the office of the firm”.
It went on: “He did not seek at any time to clarify what he was being asked by the recorder, in order not to mislead the court. The tribunal did not accept that Mr Tanwar’s responses were a result of him seeking to clarify his status rather than his location.”
Even after counsel for another party told the judge that Mr Tanwar was not at his office, “he still sought to persuade the recorder that he was in London and working remotely, rather than out of the country entirely”.
He was also accused of misconduct in failing to appear in-person as required by the court.
Mr Tanwar told the SDT that, about a week before the hearing, he considered himself dis-instructed as Person A and Person B had apparently reconciled. But he was told the day before the hearing that it had not been adjourned; Person A “begged” him to appear at the hearing so as to seek an adjournment.
The SDT did not accept this. Mr Tanwar had not sought to come off the record and this “created an expectation that the solicitor with conduct would either attend or make arrangements for another advocate to attend”.
He should have known that the court “was not bound to vacate a hearing that concerned care proceedings for children and allegations of domestic abuse”.
In deciding sanction, the SDT said this was not a ‘moment of madness’ case – the solicitor “participated in a hearing which lasted almost 45 minutes, during which the question of his whereabouts was one which the recorder returned to on several occasions”.
The tribunal found that the solicitor had acted dishonestly and failed to uphold the rule of law and proper administration of justice.
Rejecting the argument that there were exceptional circumstances, it struck off Mr Tanwar and ordered him to pay £7,500 in costs, reduced from £32,500 due to his means.
Leave a Comment