A public access barrister who was the subject of more than 40 complaints to the Legal Ombudsman has been disbarred, in the third sanction imposed on him in as many weeks.

Tariq Rehman was disbarred following an hearing at the Bar Standards Board’s Disciplinary Tribunal yesterday.

Rehman was an immigration barrister and head of chambers at Kings Court Chambers in Birmingham.

The latest decision follows two separate rulings in recent weeks in which he was suspended for a total of 41 months and permanently banned from carrying out public access work.

Rehman faced more than 40 different complaints to the LeO about him from different clients between 2012 and 2014.

The complaints ranged from failure to perform work after being instructed, not providing client care letters, overcharging clients and not providing refunds.

The BSB added that it found further evidence that Rehman and his chambers were practising in breach of the Legal Services Act.

In 2014, the LeO publicly named and shamed Rehman because of the number of complaints against him. Rehman argued that the apparently disproportionate number of complaints merely reflected the very high volume of his public access caseload. 

In May, the Gazette reported that the High Court dismissed claims by Rehman that sought to overturn charges against him. He had also lodged two judicial reviews, one of which, if granted, would have undermined every finding and determination against him by the disciplinary tribunal.

The claim also aimed to set aside every adverse finding made by the tribunal against any barrister, and to have every barrister who has ever been disbarred or suspended restored and paid compensation.

Sara Jagger, director of professional conduct at the BSB, said: ‘Rehman accepted instructions on a public access basis in immigration matters, where clients were particularly vulnerable and the cases were potentially time-sensitive.

‘The decision to disbar Rehman reflects the need to protect the public from his serious and persistent failures in this case and in the cases decided previously.’