Lawyer not fined

A NEWS item appeared in The Fiji Times issue of February 3, 2023 at Page 7, concerning Mehboob Raza, a very senior legal practitioner, who recently retired after having spent 46 years in the profession.

The Chief Registrar of the High Court had made an application against him before the Independent Legal Services Commission (ILSC) on a charge of failing to respond within the time specified by the Chief Registrar. Such a charge falls in the category of disciplinary offences termed “professional misconduct”.

Mr Raza had pleaded guilty to the charge. On a notice dated October 17, 2019 from the Chief Registrar, was required to provide his response within 14 days. However, he provided his response on November 15, 2019. The Chief Registrar filed his application against Mr Raza on November 21, 2019.

I, together with Miriam Naco, an associate at my office, appeared as counsel for Mr Raza.

The story contains a number of inaccuracies which I wish to correct.

First, the headline. This matter has nothing to do with FICAC (the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption). The term “FICAC” in the headline is wholly wrong and damaging to Mr Raza. In any event (and not of relevance to this matter), FICAC only investigates and prosecutes; it does not “fine”.

Secondly, there was no fine imposed by the ILSC. The full orders of the Commissioner (paraphrased) were:

# the practitioner was found guilty of professional misconduct by his plea of guilty;

# as the level of seriousness was low, no sanction was imposed. Accordingly, the practitioner’s name was not to be entered in the Discipline Register;

# the Practitioner was ordered to pay costs of $700 to the Chief Registrar’s Office and costs of $700 to the ILSC.

Accordingly, there was no sanction imposed and nor was there any fine.

The headline was therefore wholly erroneous and misleading. The reporter should have exercised more care when reporting on a matter such as this. SUBHAS PARSHOTAM Parshotam Lawyers Suva

( ■ Our headline and the opening paragraph of our story were both incorrect. We sincerely apologise to Mr Raza for our mistake. — Editor)