News

Veteran family law barrister suspended for twice breaking family court injunction

By on
16

Sami Ur Rahman convicted of breaching non-molestation order taken out by ex-girlfriend

A family barrister with 24 years’ experience has been suspended for three months after twice breaking a family court non-molestation order.

Sami Ur Rahman was also fined £1,000 after pleading guilty to breaching the order, which forbade him from contacting a former girlfriend. A bar disciplinary tribunal said that Rahman had “let down the profession”.

Rahman, who was called to the bar in 1996, has a mixed family, employment and common law practice at 5 Pump Court Chambers in London.

The experienced advocate was hauled before a Bar Tribunals & Adjudication Service panel after a criminal conviction for breaching a non-molestation order on two occasions.

According to the tribunal’s judgment, it all started when Rahman “entered into an extra marital relationship with a woman” known as Ms X.

The affair broke down in February 2018. The next month, Ms X got a non-molestation order against Rahman. The order forbade the ex-lover from going to Ms X’s house or trying to communicate with her except through her solicitor.

Ten days after being served with the order, Rahman breached it by going to speak to Ms X. When Ms X made it clear that she had no interest in talking to him, he left, but turned up again the next day.

The 2020 Legal Cheek Chambers Most List

The police then got involved and Rahman ultimately pleaded guilty to two breaches of a non-molestation order. In March 2019, he was sentenced at Isleworth Crown Court to community service and handed a restraining order.

According to the sentencing remarks, Rahman is estranged from his wife, who now lives in Ireland, while Ms X works “in part at least, as an escort”.

At the disciplinary tribunal, Rahman admitted to one charge of professional misconduct. Ruminating on the appropriate sanction, the panel noted:

“That he does a large amount of family work does seem to us something of an aggravating factor when what he has done is to breach of [sic] a Family Court injunction.”

But the panel also took into account that Rahman “has expressed his remorse which we accept as genuine and that this offence was out of character”. Rahman’s head of chambers is said to have backed him, and his estranged wife even came over from Ireland to support him. There was also private medical evidence.

The tribunal concluded that, “having regard to the mitigation put forward, a three month suspension is appropriate and there should also be a relatively modest fine of £1,000”. The suspension will not kick in until 1 May 2020 to allow Rahman to finish up a couple of pending cases.

The decision is open to appeal.

According to a LinkedIn page, Rahman is on his fifth chambers, having also spent time at 7 New Square, Field Court, Five Paper and Kenworthy’s. His profile on the 5 Pump Court website says that “Sami is particularly known for his accessibility but also his experience and reputation as an effective advocate”.

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Newsletter

16 Comments

Hill Dog 6000

So a trainee solicitor leaves a briefcase on a train and gets struck off by the SRA… this person ignores the law with knowledge of the implications of doing so and gets a measly fine?

Disgusting

(56)(2)

PupilPower

And a 3 month suspension.

The sol lost confidential docs and lied about it twice.

(8)(5)

Correction.

Struck off by the SDT, not the SRA. The SRA makes the application to the tribunal.

(6)(1)

Anonymous

“[H]is estranged wife even came over from Ireland to support him”; call me a cynic but she probably had a direct financial interest in him continuing in practice. This “punishment” is a joke.

(18)(0)

Simonsays

It is a joke, but effectively his actions (once now reported) are still career ending.

(5)(1)

Anon

Doubt many people will be that bothered tbh.

(6)(4)

rubyshoes

“…your relationship with the complainant [who] works, as I understand it, in part at least, as an escort”.

LOL. How embarassing for him.

(16)(1)

anonymous

Why embarrassing? He sells his brain, she sells her ahem. The only two differences are that escorts are obliged to deliver a result, lawyers are only obliged to ensure that they deliver a service that does not fall short of a what another reasonably competent lawyer practising in that area delivers; escorts also stop screwing you when you die ….

(12)(2)

escortlaw

Escorts also take home more per hour than most lawyers, with the exception maybe of top equity but then the amount of time equity and escorts have to spend screwing people averages out to be about the same.

(7)(0)

Anon

“Why embarrassing?” Because reading between the lines one explanation of the narrative is that he thought paying by the hour led to a relationship when it didn’t. Why is pretty tragic but understandable knowing the egos of some barristers.

(14)(0)

Anonymous

This type of order is often used as a weapon and is chucked around by the family courts like confetti. Breaching them isn’t always much of a big deal.

(11)(12)

Family Bar

One of my clients was on the other side of an ex parte non-mol. One of the most disgraceful applications for an order that I have ever seen. A tissue of lies and deceit conjured out of random postings on the internet which the applicant said were directed to them but which said nothing about the applicant whatsoever. Judge told off the applicant and expressed concerns as to content of the application but granted an ex parte order for 6 months with liberty to the respondent to apply to discharge and/or vary. In the end, client decided that it would cause less to disruption and inconvenience to comply with the terms of the order for 6 months than to have to deal with the applicant and their solicitors for probably the same length of time in trying to get it listed to get set aside.

(2)(1)

Anonymous

Yes, everyone knows they’re used as a weapon.

(7)(1)

Anonymous Ciaran Goggins

Jesus, Mary and Joseph one of the Galway Rahmans?

(4)(0)

Anon

No, de Kinvarra Rahmans just down de road dere.

(0)(0)

Cyril Sargent

Well that explains it then. Me ma always warned me about them, hanging around Connolly’s so they did.

(1)(0)

Comments are closed.

Related Stories