In a decisive move, a tribunal has disbarred a barrister who falsified his curriculum vitae, dismissing claims that the discrepancies were due to dyslexia.
The tribunal’s recent decision concerning Yasser Mahmood is a reminder of the importance of honesty in the legal profession. Mahmood’s CV, submitted for an external examiner position at a university, misleadingly stated that he had worked as an employment barrister at Tooks Chambers from October 2010 to December 2012. In reality, he had neither completed pupillage nor held a practising certificate.
The Bar disciplinary tribunal examined the details shared in Mahmood’s CV, which claimed involvement in advocacy, case management, and client conferences—all tasks typically expected of a practising barrister. These claims were accepted by Mahmood as potentially misleading, yet he attributed them to honest errors stemming from his dyslexic condition.
Despite acknowledging Mahmood’s diagnosis of a dyslexic learning difficulty in 2005, the tribunal scrutinised whether these were one-off mistakes. Mahmood tried to redefine ‘advocacy’ as mere discussions with peers, which the panel found unconvincing given his educational background and professional endeavours.
Furthermore, Mahmood’s assertion of being part of the chambers’ mini pupillage committee was questioned. His role was allegedly limited to administrative support, yet his wording suggested active membership, a claim the panel did not find credible.
The tribunal noted Mahmood’s references to acquired skills as a practitioner were exaggerated, giving an impression of past barrister practice. This impression was further supported by the CV’s mention of professional body memberships, where he misleadingly labelled himself as a ‘Barrister (non-practising)’.
The evidence pointed to a deliberate attempt to portray experience and qualifications that were not accurate, undermining the public’s trust and confidence in the individual. Mahmood’s inability to identify other dyslexia-related errors in his CV further weakened his defence.
As a civil standard, the tribunal held that Mahmood’s behaviour was likely to erode public trust and viewed as compromising his integrity. Consequently, the tribunal recommended disbarment, stating that mitigating factors such as character references, mental health considerations, and personal responsibilities did not sufficiently counterbalance the gravity of his dishonesty.
Ultimately, Mahmood was not only disbarred but also ordered to cover legal costs amounting to £2,670.
This case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining integrity within the legal system, sending a clear message about the consequences of professional misconduct.
