CV: Not an isolated error
The tribunal that disbarred a barrister who lied on his CV rejected his explanation that these were mistakes that arose from his dyslexia, it has emerged.
We reported last month that, when applying to Arden University to be an external examiner, Yasser Mahmood’s CV said that, between October 2010 and December 2012, he had been an employment barrister at Tooks Chambers.
In fact, he had never undertaken pupillage, nor had he ever held a practising certificate.
The Bar disciplinary tribunal’s full decision has now been published and set out how the CV gave various examples of the work that he had supposedly done at Tooks, including exposure to advocacy and responsibility for conduct of cases and client conferences.
It recorded: “Mr Mahmood accepted that this gave the impression to a person reading the CV that he had been a practising barrister during that period. However, he said that this was as a result of an honest mistake arising out of his dyslexia.”
The tribunal accepted that in 2005 he was diagnosed with a specific learning difficulty which was of a dyslexic nature.
It went on to examine whether this was an isolated error and found it was not.
Mr Mahmood told the tribunal that the reference to advocacy was meant to refer to his day-to-day discussions with professionals. “The panel did not accept this as a credible explanation given his completion of the bar course and his professional experience since.”
The CV also indicated that he has been a member of chambers’ mini pupillage committee. Mr Mahmood explained that he had been in an admin role for the committee, checking availability, and so he considered himself a member of it.
“The panel did not consider this to be plausible. Overall, the panel, again, considered that this gave the impression that he was a member of Tooks Chambers.”
The tribunal acknowledged that Mr Mahmood’s experience in other roles would have justified some of what he included under the heading of skills.
“However, his frequent reference to having obtained such skills whilst in practice, an expression which would ordinarily mean that of a practising barrister, together with his explanation (which the panel thought not credible) that he meant by that to refer to practical experience, led the panel to again conclude that this was meant to give the impression that he had, in the past, been a practising barrister.”
The section of the CV referring to membership of professional bodies referred to him as ‘Barrister (non-practising)’.
The panel did not accept Mr Mahmood’s explanation that the reference to him being a barrister in the legal experience section of the CV was an honest mistake as a result of his dyslexia.
“The CV was a clear and comprehensive document which did not include any other errors and it noted that when asked, Mr Mahmood was unable to point to any other errors within the CV.”
The tribunal concluded to the civil standard that Mr Mahmood had behaved in a manner which was likely to diminish public trust and confidence and could reasonably be seen by the public to undermine his integrity and honesty.
The indicative sanction was disbarment and the tribunal said Mr Mahmood’s mitigation – including character references, deterioration in his mental health since the charges had been brought, and his caring responsibilities – did not relate to the dishonesty, “and the panel did not find that there were exceptional circumstances in this case”.
He was disbarred and ordered to pay costs of £2,670.
Leave a Comment