News

Barrister suspended after repeating criminal allegations against another lawyer in court robing rooms

By on
57

He’s lodged an appeal

Stafford Combined Court

A barrister has been suspended after he mouthed off about another lawyer, called ‘M’ in tribunal papers, in the robing room of two crown courts. A judgment states Forz Khan repeated allegations of rape, assault and conspiracy to murder against M in both Stafford Crown Court and Birmingham Crown Court, despite not knowing M.

The decision made by The Bar Tribunals & Adjudication Service (TBAS) continues that, after his robing room outbursts, Queen Mary law graduate Khan contacted M’s partner “via a professional networking site and made reference to issues concerning M”.

The 2018 Chambers Most List

Khan, whose LinkedIn profile states he’s a “Senior Barrister from Middle Temple with substantial experience of Practice”, admitted three charges of professional misconduct.

The Bar Standards Board’s director of professional conduct, Sara Jagger, said:

“The tribunal’s decision that Mr Khan’s actions amounted to serious misconduct is a clear indication that behaviour such as this is not acceptable — acting in this way lacks integrity and diminishes the trust and confidence which the public places in the profession.”

The decision of the three-person tribunal was to suspend Khan for seven months. Legal Cheek has been told Khan has lodged an appeal.

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek's careers events:

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub

57 Comments

Anonymous

Dropped my Rolls in for a service with this chap. Embarrassment all round.

http://thechambersoffkhan.com/Rollsroyce.aspx

(26)(1)

Anonymous

*substantal* experience

(3)(1)

Anonymous

What choppers.

(1)(1)

RD

“Chambers do not agree to take on every case we are asked to conduct. We select very carefully.” So, either ignorant of or refusing to follow the cab rank rule, and openly boasts of it.

“Areas Of Work – Administrative, Agriculture, Animal Welfare, Aviation, Civil, Compulsory Purchase, Corporate and business, Costs, Courts Martial, Criminal, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Environmental, Family – Abduction, Family – Children, Family – Divorce, Family-Financial, Fraud, Health and Safety, Human Rights, Immigration, Licensing, Local Authority, Private Prosecution, Professional Discipline, Prosecution, Regulatory, Road Traffic, Tribunals” Blimey, that’s a fair old list. Although he doesn’t say whether his “Professional Discipline” experience extends beyond tat where he is personally in the dock.

(12)(2)

Bob the goat

Cab rank rule doesn’t apply to direct access, init

(7)(0)

sue r pipe

I think the rolls Royce reference was regarding his firms approach to matters, and was not meant to be taken literally, I’m sure he is probably better than a lot of the so, called expensive lawyers out there who you pay an arm and a leg for and the result is shitter than if you did it yourself.

Try to keep up.

(7)(26)

Doctor Doom

Hi Forz.

(21)(1)

Wendy

Haha, liking your own comment eh? Get back to watching cartoons you stupid tosser

(1)(6)

Alan Slackbladder

Two witty comments from Alan Blacker there.

(7)(0)

Guido Fawkes

He could become a pro bono McKenzie Friend for his seven month suspension, defending Lord Harley in a Manchester Crown Court matter on 13 July. The right honourable lord apparently failed to tell some government department about a change of circumstances. I assume that means he failed to tell them he is an Irish Lord working as Senior Counsel.

(1)(1)

Anonymous

Even worse: “Mr Khan is a Barrister based in London, England, with over 25 years experience having been Called to The Bar in 1988 by Middle Temple.”

Was that posted from 5 years in the future?

(18)(18)

Anonymous

That was 30 years ago so I doubt it…

(23)(2)

Anonymous

It’s 2018 pal. Was this posted ten years in the past?

(26)(0)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(1)(5)

Doctor Doom

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(2)(1)

Wendy's mate

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(2)(1)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(1)(3)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

This post was removed because it offended the tender sensibilities of one of the Legal Cheek editors.

Just like all of the above.

Anonymous

‘Mr Khan has taught law at university.

A number of barristers have been trained by Mr Khan. They have gone on to have their own successful practices.’

Really?

(10)(2)

Anonymous

Shit the bed… taught law at university! Hire this guy now!

(7)(1)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Why has it taken from May 2016 to now to get a verdict ? Any ideas please brethren ?

(3)(2)

Anonymous

That’s just how long these things invariably take.

Allegation lodged with regulator.

Regulator looks at it after about a month.

Allegation referred to interim hearing for an interim sanction where appropriate.

Case is investigated. This takes years usually due to caseloads and shortage of staff.

Case listed. Case adjourned due to availability of panels and/or defence tactics.

Case finally determined about 2 years later.

(1)(1)

Anonymous

Cheers.

From experience then, do you think he will have been suspended for a while, or allowed to continue in the interim ?

(0)(2)

Lord Harley of Counsel

A friend of mine and a thoroughly decent chap.

(36)(0)

sue r pipe

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(12)

Lord Harley of Counsel

Thank you Alan. Very much appreciated.

(5)(0)

Daryl

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(3)

Gert Bucket

Shut up fat boy.

(0)(2)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

“Chambers do not agree to take on every case we are asked to conduct.

We select very carefully.”

Interesting approach to the cab rank rule…

(15)(4)

sue r pipe

Do you even know how the cab rank rule works in practice eh. no didn’t think so, go back to pretending to be a lawyer.

(4)(11)

Anonymous

Dickweeds.

(3)(0)

Anonymous

Brickswallop

(2)(0)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

The cab rank rule doesn’t apply to direct access work.

(13)(0)

Anonymous

From his website: “We will not deal with any other case whilst yours is live….This “Rolls-Royce” service will only be available to a very few, carefully selected clients” so he is on the hand not dealing with other cases whilst yours is live but is making it available to a few clients, do they just form a line until he can deal with their case exclusively?

(6)(0)

An Barrister

An advertising puff to make the client feel special.

I don’t know a single Barrister who could operate this way, unless what he really means is that the private client will be the only one represented by him AT COURT ON THE DAY, unlike counsel on Legal Aid who may be representing several in one sitting.

If so, that’s hardly a “Rolls-Royce” service- most counsel/Solicitors will operate this way with a private client.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

No surprise about the name of this individual. Characters like this are a stain on the Bar, a profession which, despite public perception to the contrary, remains one of the most honourable and professional. It hurts to know people like this are at the Bar when there is a queue of talent hoping to join it.

(18)(6)

Doctor Doom

Maybe he’ll concentrate less on trying to add everyone on LinkedIn then.

(4)(3)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(4)(9)

Corbyn. Sympathiser

Bugger off fascist.

(5)(2)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(2)

Benny Goodman

Trumpenkrieg, can you explain your comment/joke? What is the relevance of the Punjab?

(1)(0)

Anonymous

I think he is suggesting they are bent or otherwise dishonorable.

(0)(0)

Jones Day Associate

Next stop Hollywood… https://www.starnow.com/forzkhan

(14)(0)

Anonymous

I wish I had as much time to research as the Jones Day Associate… but great job nevertheless. You deserve a pay rise for this gem!

(0)(0)

The Truth

This guy is actually fighting against the tide of private equity,hedge fund kiddies and insurance companies/banks which now own the law in this country, and can’t even run it as a moderately successful business. He and people of his ilk are to be applauded, but instead are arrested on trumped up charges so their paymasters can continue to fuck the law.

(3)(8)

Anonymous

Nice of you to drop in

(2)(0)

legalise weed now!

What you been smoking? Can I have some?

(2)(0)

Daryl

Someday you will understand……

(0)(2)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(2)(0)

The Truth

This guy could steal a march on everybody if he were to take his business/clients, relocate to mainland Europe before April 2019 and then continue on while everybody else is scrabbling around for clients.

(0)(2)

Anonymous

Admit it, it’s you. Not fooling anyone.

(1)(0)

Comments are closed.

Related Stories