Roll On Friday
A solicitor has been struck off for telling a court that he was in London during a hearing when he was out of the country.
Priyank Tanwar, a consultant at Glen Solicitors at the time, was instructed in family law proceedings, acting for the father, Person A. In July 2023, the court made an order listing the matter for a final contested hearing on 24 August before Recorder Matthew O’Grady, in Leicester county court.
Tanwar flew to Munich on the morning of the hearing. However, he told the court that he was in Ealing, London, and so could not attend the hearing in Leicester.
Tanwar joined the proceedings by telephone, but there were problems with the connection. The recorder, O’Grady, asked the solicitor where he was calling from, so the court could establish a stable connection.
Tanwar provided his office landline number, but didn’t pick up when the court rang (given that he was in Germany), and asked to be called on his mobile.
In another instance, O’Grady asked Tanwar if he could attend the Leicester court, in person:
“Recorder O’Grady: So, how soon can you get to the court building?
Tanwar: …we are in London
Recorder: You’re in, you’re in London at the moment, are you?
Tanwar: Yes
Recorder: Whereabouts in London are you at the moment?
Tanwar: Ealing
Recorder: You’re in Ealing, are you? Well, can you then –
Tanwar: Yes Judge
Recorder: Then can you, are you in your offices in Ealing? Are you in your offices-
Respondent: Yes”
In what must have been a sweaty-palmed moment for the solicitor, the judge later pressed Tanwar on his previous statement about his location:
“Recorder O’Grady: …Now, you told me earlier on, I asked you how soon you could get here, you recall me asking you how soon you could get here? Mr Tanwar?
Tanwar: Sir, I, I can’t get to Leicester today
Recorder: No, no, no, I, I’m asking, you, you recall that earlier on I asked you if you could get here, I asked you that earlier on and you said to me you couldn’t get here.
Tanwar: yes, yes …
Recorder: Yes, you said to me that you were in Ealing at the moment. Yes?
Tanwar: In London, yes.
Recorder: So, you’re in Ealing in London, is that right, and that’s why you can’t get to court today?
Tanwar: I’m working remotely, our office is in Ealing, yes.
Recorder: Right. No, I’m, I’m just checking the reason you can’t come to court today is because you’re in Ealing in London, is that right?
Tanwar: Yes, I’m, I’m in London but I’m working remotely, not in, in the office today, yes.”
When the matter came before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, Tanwar argued that there were “crossed wires” and that when the judge asked him about his whereabouts, he thought he should provide the firm’s office location.
However, the panel rejected this argument, stating that it was clear that the judge had asked Tanwar where he was “at that moment”, and there was no question about where his office was.
Tanwar “stated several times, untruthfully, that he was in London”, and engaged “in an obfuscatory exchange, aimed at manufacturing an appearance of a misunderstanding, by reference to his office being ‘in Ealing’, and then reverted to another untruth by stating again that he was ‘in London’ when that was not the case,” stated the tribunal.
This was not just a “moment of madness”, said the tribunal, as Tanwar had participated in a hearing which lasted almost 45 minutes, during which the judge asked him about his whereabouts on several occasions.
The SRA’s barrister also stated that Tanwar should have been present at the hearing, given the “importance of directions given by the court”; the case concerned sensitive proceeding involving two children, and a vulnerable mother, who had made allegations of domestic abuse against Tanwar’s client.
The tribunal found that the court order had required Tanwar’s physical attendance in court. Tanwar tried to argue that the order allowed for remote attendance, as it did not specifically state “in-person”; but the tribunal said the direction for the hearing included the court’s address, and therefore required him to attend in-person.
Tanwar had “wasted valuable court time”, and “misled a judge, which was misconduct of the highest order”, found the tribunal. He was struck off the roll, and ordered to pay £7,500 in costs.
https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/solicitor-who-pretended-be-uk-struck
