Barrister ‘broadcast’ false rape claims about lawyer

Panel upholds suspension for misconduct after comments played down as ‘robing room gossip’

A BARRISTER “broadcast” false rape allegations about a fellow lawyer and contacted the man’s wife via social media to allude to her husband’s affair, a court heard. Forz Khan was representing a female solicitor who had an affair with another barrister but the relationship ended when Mr Khan’s client found out her lover was in fact married.

The two lawyers having an affair then accused each other of harassment and took out injunctions against each other.

The woman, who has not been named for legal reasons, described her former partner as a “cheating, deceiving psychopath who will threaten you when you speak out against him”.

During the criminal case, Mr Khan used the professional networking site Linkedin to approach the barrister’s wife and allude to her husband’s affair, saying he was “glad to see you are doing well considering everything”.

A High Court judge said the woman appeared not to know of her husband’s liaison and asked Mr Khan what he meant. “Mr Khan’s response was words to the effect of – Oops. I heard that your husband had a personal difficulty. I hope I am in error,” Mr Justice Warby said in his judgment.

Mr Khan went on to “broadcast” allegations that the male barrister in question, also not named for legal reasons, stalked his client, raped her and made death threats against her.

On two separate occasions, Mr Khan made the claims in court cloakrooms in front of other lawyers, including colleagues of the accused barrister.

He dismissed the incidents as “robing room gossip” or “barrister tittletattle” but a disciplinary panel described it as “wholly unacceptable” and said they showed Mr Khan lacked integrity. The Bar Standards Board found Mr Khan guilty on three counts of professional misconduct in March and suspended him for 21 months. An appeal heard by the High Court this month upheld the guilty charges but cut his ban to seven months, saying the initial penalty was “clearly excessive”.

“The information which Mr Khan deployed in this case was, as he knew or should have realised, personal, private, sensitive, and highly damaging to reputation. He had obtained it as a professional. Its disclosure by him to people who otherwise knew nothing about the matter was manifestly inappropriate,” Mr Justice Warby said in his ruling last week.

“By broadcasting in two robing rooms serious allegations of wrongdoing against a named professional, Mr Khan engaged in conduct that was likely to diminish public confidence in Mr Khan himself, and the profession. It was conduct so seriously wrong as to qualify as professional misconduct.”

Mr Khan said he planned to appeal against the ruling and take it to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.