Lawyer could be struck off after misconduct case Human rights solicitor should apologise to veterans for ‘war crime’ cases, says Fallon
ACONTROVERSIAL Birmingham lawyer faces being struck off after admitting a string of misconduct charges.
Human rights lawyer Phil Shiner has been told by the Defence Secretary to apologise to Iraq veterans he pursued over war crimes after he admitted a string of misconduct charges.
A disciplinary tribunal heard Mr Shiner, a solicitor who worked for the now-defunct Birmingham firm Public Interest Lawyers (PIL), accepted he will be stuck off.
He admitted nine allegations of acting without integrity after an investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
Mr Shiner came to public attention when he represented the Iraqi family of Baha Mousa, who was beaten to death by British soldiers.
He also launched many other high-profile legal actions against the Ministry of Defence relating to alleged human rights abuses involving UK armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Among the accusations against Mr Shiner was one that he made “unsolicited direct approaches” to potential clients through a fixer, understood to be Abu Jamal, and three others. He also agreed to pay Jamal, named only as “Z” in SRA papers, thousands of pounds for referrals, which is prohibited.
As a team leader at PIL, Mr Shiner authorised and procured payments and fee-sharing agreements with the agent between 2007 and 2010.
One of those payments was for £25,000 in March 2009, which he admitted, but he denied it had related to a publicly-funded case as the SRA alleged.
Mr Shiner admitted a further nine charges in part, accepting he acted without integrity but denying he did so dishonestly.
Among them, he admitted acting recklessly by claiming at a press conference in February 2008 that the British Army had unlawfully killed, tortured and mistreated Iraqi civilians at the Battle of Danny Boy during the Iraq War.
And he offered “sweeteners” in the way of payment to a fixer to change evidence on how he had identified clients to go before the Al-Sweady Inquiry.
But Mr Shiner denies six allegations, including that he misled the £31 million inquiry by failing to make full disclosures and also the Legal Services Commission over legal aid grants.
Andrew Tabachnik, putting the case for the SRA, said: “Even on the basis of his own admissions, Professor Shiner accepts this tribunal must strike him off at the end of this case.”
Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said: “Phil Shiner made the lives of soldiers a misery by pursuing false allegations of torture and murder. It was on behalf of those soldiers that we complained about Mr Shiner’s actions and finally he has admitted he was reckless and acted without integrity.
“He should now apologise to the soldiers whose reputations he attempted to traduce.”
Mr Shiner now faces a threeweek trial – including a week for the panel to read more than 2,500 pages of evidence – in January.
The case is already thought to be one of the most expensive brought by the SRA, with costs already reaching more than £475,000 before the trial.
Mr Shiner’s firm, PIL, brought forward the majority of the nearly 2,500 allegations that were to be considered by the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (Ihat).
PIL closed in August this year after being stripped of legal aid funding for breaching contractual requirements.
Mr Shiner’s former colleague at PIL, John Dickinson, denies the same single charge and will also appear before the tribunal.