In a significant ruling, a barrister has been disbarred for falsely claiming to have practised from a prestigious London set, despite never completing pupillage.
Yasser Mahmood, who was called to the Bar in 2010 but remains unregistered, has been formally disbarred following revelations that he misrepresented his professional history on his CV. This decision highlights ongoing discussions about when barristers should be officially called to the Bar, suggesting a potential shift in regulations.
In 2021, Mahmood applied for a position as an external examiner at Arden University. His CV misleadingly stated that he had been employed as an employment barrister at Tooks Chambers from October 2010 to December 2012. Contrary to these claims, Mahmood neither completed the necessary pupillage nor held a practising certificate at any point.
A spokesperson from the Bar Standards Board (BSB) commented, ‘The public should be able to reasonably expect that barristers are accurate in representing any practising history or entitlement to practise as a barrister.’ Mahmood’s actions were deemed dishonest and fell short of the high standards set for barristers, leading to his disbarment by the tribunal, although the decision is open to appeal. Additionally, Mahmood has been ordered to pay £2,670 in costs.
This incident comes in the wake of concerns expressed by Nick Vineall KC, former chair of the Bar Council. In September 2023, Vineall noted the potential for client confusion due to the existence of numerous unregistered barristers. Currently, there are thousands who have never practised but retain their title after completing the Bar training course, yet without undertaking pupillage.
Vineall argued that the current system places an unjust financial strain on practising barristers, who shoulder the regulatory costs of their non-practising peers. He advocated for a system that appoints barristers only after they have satisfactorily completed their pupillage, with a provisional call or practising certificate for those in the second stage of their training. This proposal, he claims, would not only clarify the status of barristers for clients but also enhance social mobility, though this latter benefit has been contested.
The disbarment case against Mahmood underscores critical discussions regarding the timing of a barrister’s call to the Bar, highlighting the need for reforms to prevent such instances of misrepresentation in the future.
