McGowan: Strike-off was only appropriate penalty
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) was right to strike off a solicitor who took part in a fraudulent personal injury (PI) claim, even though he was not the instigator, the High Court has ruled.
Mrs Justice McGowan said the sanction imposed on Farrukh Abbas was “entirely justified”.
She explained: “This was not a momentary or spontaneous reaction. The appellant signed a witness statement bearing a declaration of truth, he attended a medical examination and therapy sessions and he was an active participant throughout.
“Public confidence in the legal profession, the need that the public should be able to trust the legal profession is damaged by this conduct and would be further damaged if the sanction did not meet the seriousness of the conduct.”
The SDT decided last year that Mr Abbas “shattered” public trust in the profession by making the claim through the law firm where he worked.
Although there were signs that the immigration solicitor had acted in concert with a paralegal at Prime Law Solicitors in Ilford, Essex who had far more experience of PI matters than him, this did not displace his “high culpability”, it said.
Mr Abbas appealed only against sanction, arguing that there were exceptional circumstances that meant he should not have been struck off – the usual outcome in cases of dishonesty.
These were that it was a joint venture but the tribunal failed to properly consider whether it was the other participant Mr Anjum’s idea or that Mr Anjum had applied pressure.
Counsel submitted that, if Mr Anjum’s role had been properly identified, it would demonstrate that Mr Abbas was “less dishonest”.
Mr Abbas further argued that the SDT failed to give sufficient weight to his family’s medical circumstances in considering the impact of the sanction and that the affected driver did not suffer serious harm.
McGowan J said: “The fact that it was not his idea originally, that another was involved, that he did not practice in personal injury work and that his family circumstances may mitigate but they do not absolve him of responsibility to the extent contended for by [counsel], notwithstanding the absence of any previous adverse findings.
“Any experienced solicitor knows that he should not become involved in such a fraud. A knowledge of personal injury work is not necessary to understand that making a claim for an accident in which he was not involved is thoroughly dishonest.”
Mr Abbas’s “sense of grievance” that only he was before the SDT “does not affect his own position or alter the level of his deceit”.
He had conceded before the SDT that the decision not to strike off could only be made by a “razor thin margin”.
McGowan J described this as “an untenable position”. She explained: “This was clear case of a systematic attempt to defraud an insurance company by a false and dishonest claim.
“The necessary elements of a criminal offence were established and the Appellant, and others, were fortunate not to have been prosecuted.”
The SDT was entitled to find that the other driver had been caused serious harm, with his insurance claim delayed and placed in jeopardy for months.
The tribunal had accepted the fact of Mr Abbas’s difficult family circumstances but did not find that they had an impact on his ability to make a rational decision between honesty and dishonesty.
“Indeed it is difficult to see how such matters could be said to explain a continuing course of dishonest conduct over nine months or so,” McGowan J said.
“Being struck off the roll was the only appropriate and proportionate penalty. It is of course, a severe and lasting punishment but one that was entirely justified in this case.”
Leave a Comment