The High Court has confirmed the decision to remove a solicitor from the roll for his involvement in a fraudulent personal injury claim, despite not being the primary instigator.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) was found to have acted correctly in striking off Farrukh Abbas, a solicitor, for his participation in a fraudulent personal injury claim. Although Mr Abbas did not initiate the claim, his active involvement in signing a false witness statement and attending various medical appointments rendered his actions indefensible.
Mrs Justice McGowan, overseeing the judgment, stated that the seriousness of Mr Abbas’s conduct warranted the penalty imposed. She remarked that public trust in the legal profession is severely compromised by such actions, and any leniency would further erode confidence. Justice McGowan noted, “This was not a momentary or spontaneous reaction,” highlighting Mr Abbas’s prolonged engagement in the fraud.
The tribunal had previously determined that Mr Abbas’s actions “shattered” the public’s trust in the legal profession by perpetrating the fraudulent claim from within his law firm, where he worked alongside a more experienced paralegal. This association, however, did not mitigate his high level of culpability according to the SDT.
Mr Abbas challenged the tribunal’s decision, citing exceptional circumstances that, he argued, should have led to a less severe sanction. His defence claimed that the initiative came from another participant, Mr Anjum, who allegedly pressured him into the scheme. Additionally, Abbas pointed to his unfamiliarity with personal injury law and his challenging family situation as mitigating factors, while asserting that the involved driver experienced no serious harm.
Justice McGowan dismissed these arguments, stating that none absolved Mr Abbas of his responsibilities as a solicitor. She stressed that any solicitor, regardless of their field of practice, should recognise the dishonesty inherent in participating in a fraudulent claim. McGowan added that the fact another party was not similarly prosecuted did not alter Mr Abbas’s culpability or diminish his fraudulent intentions.
The SDT was justified in assessing that the insurance claim’s delay and threat to the other driver’s settlement substantiated serious harm. Although recognising Mr Abbas’s personal difficulties, the tribunal found no evidence that these compromised his ability to choose integrity over deceit.
Ultimately, being struck off was deemed the sole fitting penalty, reflecting the gravity of Mr Abbas’s actions over many months. Justice McGowan acknowledged that the punishment is severe and lasting, yet fully justified, given the egregious nature of the misconduct.
The High Court’s decision underscores the gravity of fraudulent conduct within the legal profession, affirming the stringent measures necessary to uphold public confidence.
