Barrister’s appeal against sanction dismissed by High Court

A barrister’s appeal against a six-month suspension has been dismissed after the High Court said the tribunal was justified in its findings.

Zaheer Ahmad was found to have failed to comply with a 2015 court order in which he was required to pay £54,595.39 and £9,416.50 costs to Mr H, a solicitor who worked at Ahmad’s firm. Mr H began proceedings in Wandsworth County Court against Ahmad over money he claimed was owed to him under a partnership agreement. The disciplinary tribunal found two charges of misconduct proved in relation to the failure to comply with the court order. Ahmad was suspended for six months.

Ahmad, called in October 2011, appealed against the sanction. He argued the decision was ‘harsh’ and ‘against the public interest’.

Mrs Justice Lang said the tribunal’s conclusions were ‘well within the reasonable range of evaluative judgments open to a specialist tribunal’ and it had ‘considered the history of the litigation in painstaking detail’.

She added the tribunal was 'entitled to conclude' from Ahmad’s evidence that he ‘had not expressed genuine remorse for his conduct because he did not accept he was at fault or liable to pay the judgment sum’.

Dismissing the appeal in Zaheer Ahmad v Bar Standards Board, the judge said: ‘In my view, the tribunal must have been well aware that the suspension would be likely to operate harshly as it would deprive [Ahmad] of his livelihood and his income for six months. Clearly this would have an adverse effect on his family and he would not be able to continue representing clients during that period.

‘However, the tribunal was entitled to take the view that suspension was required to maintain public confidence and trust in the profession, and to maintain high standards in the profession.’

She added: ‘As Sir Thomas Bingham MR held, the adverse consequences of a suspension did not make a suspension order wrong, if it was otherwise right. In my judgment, the sanction imposed was neither wrong nor clearly inappropriate.’

Ahmad was also ordered to pay £1,200 costs.