A solicitor who was struck off the roll in 2014 for perverting the course of justice has had his application for restoration refused.
Majed Iqbal, admitted in March 2010, was convicted in 2021 of perverting the course of public justice by paying off witnesses in a fraud trial involving his client. He was jailed for five years. In 2014, he was struck off by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal which found he had caused a ‘great deal of damage to the reputation of the solicitors’ profession’, had ‘acted with a complete lack of integrity’ and ‘abused the trust placed in him as a member of the solicitors’ profession’.
Considering Iqbal’s application for restoration, the SDT said it ‘recognised and applauded Mr Iqbal for his personal character reformation as detailed in the oral and written evidence provided.’ However, character reformation was not sufficient for restoration to the roll.
The tribunal said Iqbal had failed to demonstrate detailed evidence of substantial and satisfactory employment in the legal profession’ It added: ‘Mr Iqbal had only undertaken one course [on the Code of Conduct] that lasted for six hours. The tribunal did not consider that this course was sufficient to demonstrate that he had kept himself up-to-date with the duties and regulatory obligations of a solicitor.’
The panel expressed ‘extreme concern’ at Iqbal’s proposed employment as in-house counsel as he ‘would not be supervised in that role’ and would be ‘the sole lawyer in that organisation’.
Describing Iqbal’s application for restoration as ‘premature’, the SDT said: ‘The evidence upon which he relied was not sufficient for him to overcome the almost insurmountable hurdle such that he could be restored.’
It added: ‘The matters leading to Mr Iqbal’s removal from the roll were of the utmost gravity. He was the solicitor with conduct of a fraud matter. He had made five trips abroad. The purpose of those trips was to pay witnesses for their non-cooperation in the prosecution of Mr Iqbal’s clients. He had made an application for public funding to finance the first trip. Further, an application for the exclusion of a witness’s evidence having been refused, Mr Iqbal travelled to Dubai with his client on the date of the refusal. The witness was paid £30,000 in return for his non-cooperation with the prosecution.
‘In all of the circumstances, the protection of the reputation of the profession meant that Mr Iqbal’s application could not be granted. Accordingly, the application for restoration was refused.’
Iqbal was ordered to pay £1,500 costs.
