A solicitor who provided immigration advice and services when he was not qualified to do so and was engaged in organising sham marriages has been struck off by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
All the allegations against Matthew Moghan Rajamoham Chellam, admitted in 2013, were found proved. Chellam, 45, did not attend the hearing, was not represented and did not engage with proceedings.
The SDT found that Chellam made or caused to be made fraudulent applications to the Home Office for non-EEA residence cards with the intention of assisting unlawful immigration into EU member states between April 2011 and August 2014. Between October 2012 and January 2013 he provided immigration advice and services when he knew or ought to have known that he was not qualified to do so and sought to avoid his removal from the UK when his leave to remain ended by falsely representing to the Home Office that he was in a genuine marriage to an EEA national.
Chellam was convicted in 2016 at Snaresbrook Crown Court of providing immigration advice or immigration services and seeking to obtain leave to remain in the UK by deception. He was sentenced to eight years imprisonment. He had self-reported to the regulator before his trial.
Later in 2016, Chellam told the SRA he had lodged an appeal and the regulator’s investigation had been ‘erroneously’ closed. The investigation reopened when Chellam made an application for a practising certificate for 2021/2022.
The SDT judgment described Chellam’s conduct in making fraudulent applications for non-EAA residence cards as a ‘fundamental affront to a rule designed to safeguard the fairness and justice of proceedings’.
It added: ‘The sentence imposed by the court shows that the court determined that the offence was the most serious, and the public would not expect a solicitor to assist unlawful immigration into an EU member state. The respondent’s actions would undermine the trust and confidence the public place in the legal profession.’
‘A solicitor acting with integrity would not have committed a crime repeatedly. The conviction of a solicitor for a serious criminal offence leading to the imposition of a custodial sentence and attracting adverse publicity undermines the trust that the public places in solicitors and the provision of legal services.
‘[Chellam] failed to act with integrity in that he has failed to act with moral soundness, rectitude and steady adherence to an ethical code.’
Striking off Chellam, the SDT said his motivation for the misconduct was monetary gain and his conduct had caused ‘tremendous harm to the reputation of the legal profession’.
Chellam was also ordered to pay the SRA’s costs of £4,058.
