A solicitor who told a judge that he was appearing remotely from London when he was in fact in Munich has been struck off. Priyank Tanwar, admitted in 2010, was today found to have provided misleading information to Leicester County Court about his location during an hour-long hearing in August 2023.
The three-person panel found Tanwar, who was working as a self-employed consultant for a London-based firm when instructed by a father in family court proceedings, had acted dishonestly.
Tanwar had denied the allegations, saying it was not his intention to mislead the judge.
The tribunal heard that Tanwar told the court clerk, representatives for the mother including counsel, the interpreter and his client that he was abroad and would be appearing remotely. When Recorder O’Grady asked where Tanwar was, he said 'Ealing, London'. He told the tribunal that he had misunderstood the judge.
However Tom Walker, for the Solicitors Regulation Authority, said this was 'nonsensical' as the judge's questions 'were specifically where [Tanwar] was at that moment'.
Read more
Walker told the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal that, at the time, Tanwar 'was still on the record, still engaged with the case, still in communication with his client [and] still responsible for the filing of the consent order the day before’. He 'could have not had any genuine belief that what he was being asked was where his office location was. He had ample opportunity to say where he was but he did not.’
In cross-examination, Tanwar said he had been disinstructed by his client but was then called on the morning of the hearing, when in Munich, to ‘help’. He said ‘As far as I am aware, I told the court clerk and so told the court. I had already informed everyone, the court clerk, the opponent barrister even the interpreter and client hence they sent the CVP link to join the hearing remotely.
‘It was not my intention to lie to the judge…I can read the transcript now, I can understand the judge was misled, but that was not my intention.’
Returning on the second day of the substantive hearing, tribunal chair Caroline Evans said all the allegations against Tanwar were found proved.
She said: ‘The tribunal was in no doubt that the requirement [of the court order] was an in-person hearing. The tribunal found there was a professional obligation to comply with the court order which fell on Mr Tanwar personally and the firm more generally.’ It was ‘crystal clear that Mr Tanwar sought to give the impression that he was at the office at the firm’ and the SDT ‘did not accept’ that Tanwar’s answers to the judge were based on ‘any misunderstanding’.
‘To mislead a judge in court is a serious misconduct matter as the first duty of a solicitor is to the court,' she said.
Striking Tanwar off the roll, the chair said: ‘Mr Tanwar was not being truthful in his responses to close questions by Recorder O’Grady about his whereabouts and misleading a judge is always extremely serious. He participated in a hearing that lasted almost 45 minutes. The question of his whereabouts was one the judge returned to several times during the hearing.
‘Culpability was absolute. [Tanwar’s] location was relevant as the court was trying to establish a stable connection via CVP via landline. [The hearing was] choatic in part because of Mr Tanwar’s decision to attend by telephone.’
Tanwar was also ordered to pay £7,500 costs.
