Careless talk costs careers

The recently published judgment in Forz Khan v Bar Standards Board provides insight into the professional consequences of careless talk and use of LinkedIn. It comes hot on the heels of an SDT judgment in Deborah Daniels who was prosecuted by SRA for making a series of Tweets that were offensive and which expressed hostility towards Islam, Catholicism and Judaism.

The two are completely unconnected but yet again lawyers have been professionally sanctioned for inappropriate communications. The only real surprise is that despite clear professional obligations that have been around for quite some time, they took place.

What Khan did, in summary, was this. On two occasions, in the robing rooms of two Courts in the Midlands, Stafford and Birmingham, he spoke words that suggested to those who were present and heard him that a fellow barrister who he named had (a) stalked and then (b) raped another, female, lawyer who had been Khan’s client and, (c) when she complained of this, caused serious threats to her life to be made, in an attempt to cover up what had taken place. All the information that Khan had about these matters came from his former client. Khan did not name her in what he said, but he did name the barrister.

In between these episodes, Khan sent two messages via LinkedIn to the barrister’s wife alluding to the allegations against her husband. Both Khan and the barrister’s wife had a LinkedIn profile and Khan invited her to connect with him, which she did.

As LinkedIn users will know, the system tells you if any connections have developments of note, and you are invited to send congratulations or a message. Khan received a professional update from her and he sent her a message: ‘Congratulations, glad to see you are doing well considering everything’.

She replied asking him to explain what he meant and Khan’s response was words to the effect of: 'Oops. I heard that your husband had a personal difficulty. I hope I am in error.'

A complaint was made to the Bar Standards Board about the robing room conversations and the LinkedIn messages and Khan was subsequently charged with breaches of Core Duties 3 and 5 requiring respectively that he 'must act with honesty and integrity', and 'must not behave in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in you or in the profession'.

The charges were in due course admitted and Khan was suspended for seven months.

On appeal, the suspension was reduced to three months, but what the barrister really sought on appeal was a reopening of the case on the ground that his guilty plea was based on incorrect legal advice and that he had a complete defence to the allegations.

The High Court accepted that, unlike criminal proceedings, an appeal could deal with a plea change. Khan then had to establish that he had a defence that would quite probably have succeeded had it been presented. Mr Justice Warby ruled against Khan on this point, determining he had no defence. He was not entitled to speak as he did in a robing room or to send messages by LinkedIn as he did. His initial guilty pleas had been correct.

There is some interesting commentary about a robing room being a sanctuary for advocates to speak in a relaxed manner, and where pre-hearing sparring may take place. However, a line has been clearly drawn and applies to barristers and solicitor advocates alike. The judge had no difficulty in describing the conduct as 'seriously reprehensible' and the robing room talk was not excused as 'robing room gossip' or 'barrister tittle-tattle'.

Deborah Daniels was suspended for 18 months so her penalty was much more severe. It reflected her repeated tweeting, and that her Twitter account identified her as a solicitor. Despite readers commenting on this, she carried on tweeting. The SDT concluded that a period of 18 months struck a balance between an appropriate punishment, recognition of the harm caused to the profession and the need to provide public protection.

It has been known for quite some time that loose talk and careless if not unlawful use of social media will lead to regulatory sanction. Superficially it is not easy to reconcile such a big disparity in sanction and my experience tends to suggest that if a solicitor advocate had been involved in the same conduct as Khan, an SDT sanction would have been more severe. I have never known the SDT to suspend a solicitor for as short a period as three months.

So now you know. Robing room talk requires care because what might seem 'gossip' can become serious. You don’t know who is listening. The same principles will apply anywhere to which others have access.

As for social media, either avoid it, get someone qualified to write for you, or just be very very careful.

Comments

No comments so far - why not be the first?

@
http://
(HTML markup not supported)
A much simpler set of Accounts Rules will come into force in November 2019, and will for the first time give firms, managers and sole practitioners considerable flexibility on how they go about complying and dealing with client money.
The Leigh Day appeal reaffirmed some basic principles for appeals of SRA judgements
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal regularly deals with applications brought by the SRA following the conclusion of criminal proceedings against solicitors. The conviction sometimes forms the entire basis of the proceedings, but otherwise
In late 2013 Aidan Loy committed three drink driving offences for which he was sentenced in December 2013 and February 2014. The second two offences were dealt with together, and as they were all committed in a very short period of time with
LawCare released striking statistics at the beginning of 2018 which show the number of lawyers calling for help is increasing. Lawyers' mental and emotional health has been slowly creeping up the agenda and even the SRA is recognising
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal is now consulting on whether to reduce the standard of proof in disciplinary cases from a criminal to a civil one.
Solicitors have been warned to watch their language and it is highly likely that other regulators will adopt a similar approach.
Solicitors and firms are required to report to the SRA promptly, serious misconduct but what constitutes serious misconduct
The SRA and other regulators frequently bring disciplinary proceedings based on "a lack of integrity." But what is integrity?
In September 2017 Majid Mahmood was fined £25,000 and was the subject of a deferred period of suspension as a result of wholly inappropriate posts on his Facebook Page
On the 21 September 2017 the SRA published a warning notice to solicitors, firms and anyone else it regulates who provide tax planning services
There is a procedure in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal which allows the parties to apply for disciplinary proceedings to be concluded by a Statement of Agreed Facts and Outcome.
Michael Cremin was a man who presented himself to the outside world as a Lawyer and Advocate. He had a professional profile on the web site of Cotswold Barristers Chambers, along with his photograph. Cremin was neither.
This has long been a guiding principle. Solicitors are guardians and trustees of client money and are expected to exercise proper stewardship over it. Everything that we do with client money has to in accordance with the SRA Accounts Rules
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has confirmed that it will consult on where to set the standard of proof when determining allegations of misconduct against solicitors. The Bar Standards Board is also looking at a new civil standard of
In proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal it has for very many years been a requirement that a solicitor should clearly know the case that he or she has to meet. In other words, there is an obligation on the SRA to properly
The need to deal carefully, thoroughly and openly with the SRA during investigations cannot be overstated. There is an explicit professional obligation to cooperate with the Authority and to provide it with whatever information it might need
Web site powered by CommsBox™