A barrister has been disbarred after a disciplinary tribunal found that he deliberately misled a client into believing he was acting through his chambers in order to avoid paying chambers rent on fees he received.
The tribunal rejected Ravi Sidhu’s claim that the arrangement arose from an honest mistake, concluding instead that his conduct was “blatantly dishonest.” Although the decision was reached last year, the full ruling has only recently been made public.
Mr Sidhu, who was called to the Bar in 1988 and was practising from Citadel Chambers in Birmingham at the time, had been instructed in May 2021 through a solicitor to represent Ms Rees at the inquest into her mother’s death.
Ms Rees later told the tribunal that she felt physically sick when, in May 2022, she contacted Citadel Chambers after Mr Sidhu indicated he intended to retire, only to be informed that chambers had no record of her case.
Evidence before the tribunal showed that Mr Sidhu issued five invoices on what appeared to be Citadel Chambers headed paper. In reality, he had undertaken the work in a personal capacity. Although he waived the final invoice, Ms Rees paid a total of £44,085 directly into his personal bank account.
Had the matter been properly processed through chambers, more than £6,000 would have been payable in rent and expenses. Mr Sidhu eventually paid that sum once the issue came to light.
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) alleged that his actions were deliberate. In response, Mr Sidhu maintained that confusion arose between fees he previously earned as an assistant coroner—where chambers expenses were not payable—and fees earned in private practice as a barrister.
However, when asked to produce examples of invoices issued for coronial work to support his explanation, he was unable to do so. The tribunal said this significantly undermined his defence that the incident was a single, genuine mistake.
The panel also noted that approximately a year earlier, Mr Sidhu had accepted direct access instructions in another coronial matter and had properly disclosed and authorised that case through chambers. In those circumstances, the tribunal found it difficult to accept that he had been confused about his obligation to account for chambers fees when instructed through a solicitor in May 2021.
In its findings, the tribunal concluded that Mr Sidhu’s motivation was to avoid paying chambers the sums due from the fees received. It held that an honest professional in his position would have sought clarification from chambers if there had been any uncertainty about the correct procedure.
By issuing invoices on chambers-headed paper, the tribunal said, he created the misleading impression that the invoices had been validated by chambers and that chambers stood behind the demands for payment.
“In our unanimous opinion,” the panel stated, “we are satisfied that Mr Sidhu’s actions were blatantly dishonest.”
In mitigation, Mr Sidhu told the tribunal that he had last worked in 2024 and was now living on a modest pension. He apologised to Ms Rees, pointed to his decision to waive the final invoice, and highlighted that he had paid the outstanding chambers fees once the issue surfaced. He also submitted character references.
Despite these factors, the tribunal concluded that disbarment was the only appropriate sanction, stating that nothing less would reflect the seriousness of the misconduct in line with sanctions guidance.
A spokesperson for the Bar Standards Board said the case underscored the importance of honesty at the Bar, adding that both clients and fellow barristers are entitled to expect integrity in professional dealings.
Credit: Legalfutres.co.uk
In this article