Rajwinder Kaur Bharya
- Application 11525-2016
- Admitted 2005
- Hearing 9 May 2017
- Reasons 18 May 2017
The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £7,500.
The respondent had sent correspondence to her opponent in litigation, representing that she had in her possession a signed witness statement when she knew she did not and had thereby breached (or failed to achieve) principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 and outcome O(11.1) of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.
In the course of a telephone conversation, the respondent had represented to her opponent in litigation that she had received, but mislaid, a signed witness statement when she knew, or should have known, that she had not and had thereby further breached (or failed to achieve) principles 2 and 6 and outcome O(11.1).
The respondent had caused an email to be sent to her opponent in other litigation, representing that she had not received a letter dated 14 April 2015 which she knew she had received, and had thereby further breached principles 2 and 6.
It was stated in the statement of agreed facts and proposed penalty that the respondent was solely responsible for making each of the untrue statements alleged. However, at the relevant time, she had been suffering from an illness which was known to cause cognitive impairment, the existence of which meant that she could not be regarded as being wholly responsible for her own wrongdoing.
It was therefore appropriate in the circumstances to impose a fine. The respondent had undertaken not to practise as a solicitor, or provide legal services in any capacity, until such time as there was a medical report from a consultant doctor confirming that she was well enough to do so. That undertaking was not limited in time and not expressed to come to an end at the termination of the proceedings. It would therefore be enforceable by the applicant by way of an application for an injunction and by bringing disciplinary proceedings before the SDT.
The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £4,591.