A solicitor who made a fraudulent claim for personal injury compensation was rightly struck off, the High Court has ruled.
In Abbas v Solicitors’ Regulatory Authority Mrs Justice McGowan DBE concluded that a permanent ban for Farrukh Abbas was ‘entirely justified’ given the nature of the dishonesty he had showed.
Abbas, admitted in 2014, was being driven by an uninsured colleague in Ilford when the vehicle was involved in a collision. No serious physical injury was caused, but the following day Abbas instructed Prime Law Solicitors, where he was an immigration consultant, to represent him in a PI claim. As part of the signed statement of truth, Abbas subsequently claimed to have been the driver and later gave misleading information to the medical expert instructed on the case.
The claim was not pursued and the matter reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority by the Insurance Fraud Bureau. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found three allegations of dishonesty proved and ordered that Abbas be struck off, stating that he played a ‘knowing and full role’ in the attempted deception which included feigning injuries for personal financial gain.
On appeal, Abbas said the tribunal had erred in not finding exceptional circumstances in his case. He sought to characterise himself as a secondary party thus ‘less dishonest’ because the driver of the car had instigated the incident. He was not an expert in personal injury work and was vulnerable at the time because of personal and family medical issues which were not considered by the tribunal.
Even accepting the deception was not his idea originally, the judge said Abbas had gone along with it for nine months and played an active part. His family circumstances may mitigate but did not absolve him of responsibility, and a knowledge of PI work was not necessary to understand that making a false claim was ‘thoroughly dishonest’.
‘This was clear case of a systematic attempt to defraud an insurance company by a false and dishonest claim,’ said the judge, ‘The necessary elements of a criminal offence were established and the appellant, and others, were fortunate not to have been prosecuted.’
She added that Abbas had signed a witness statement bearing a declaration of truth, he attended a medical examination and therapy sessions and had been 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 appeal was dismissed and Abbas ordered to pay the SRA’s costs. The tribunal had opted against a costs order against him on the basis it would be ‘unjustifiably punitive’.
