A former solicitor convicted 14 years ago of assisting unlawful immigration into Europe has been refused a way back into the profession.

Gabriel Yaakov, formerly Gabriel Gabman, was also convicted of one count of possession of a false identity document with intent. He was jailed for four years and struck off the roll in 2009.

Yaakov applied to be restored after securing new legal qualifications and insisting that his convictions were wrong. But the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal refused his request, suggesting that Yaakov had little insight into his wrongdoing and had put forward no evidence that any solicitor’s firm was willing to employ him.

The judgment said: ‘The key question for the tribunal was whether the confidence of the public could be maintained if Mr Yaakov was re-admitted in light of the criminal convictions for which he was struck off. Taking all the above factors into account, the tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Yaakov was a fit and proper person to be restored to the roll and his application was therefore refused.’

Yaakov had been described as a ‘dishonest crook, swindler and cheat’ by the sentencing judge at Croydon Crown Court in 2008. He added that the then-solicitor preyed upon vulnerable people and was a ‘disgrace to the profession’.

Yaakov continued to maintain his innocence and said that new evidence had since come to light which cast doubt on his convictions, although he had yet to make any appeal. He submitted he had been ‘careless and had trusted the wrong people’, which had led to his conviction.

He told the tribunal he had re-taken his LLB and Legal Practice Course and worked pro bono as a housing adviser at a central London charity. He had briefly been offered paid legal work in 2014, and claimed to have approached around 400 firms looking for employment.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority opposed the application, submitting that Yaakov had provided no testimonials from anyone in the profession and no fresh evidence which cut across the jury’s original findings. His conduct, it was argued, was so serious that it would undermine public confidence in the profession to let him back in.

His application refused, Yaakov sought an order that both he and the SRA should bear their own costs. The tribunal said he had known that he would face a costs order if his bid was unsuccessful, and ruled that he should pay £3,521.

 

Topics