Said he was in London, was actually in Munich
A solicitor who misled a judge about his location during a family court hearing, confirming on multiple occasions that he was in England when he was in fact calling in from Germany, has been struck off the roll of solicitors.
Priyank Tanwar, who qualified in 2010, had been instructed on a family law matter representing a father in contested children proceedings. Required to attend a final contested hearing at Leicester County Court in person in August 2023, he instead flew to Munich on the morning of the hearing and joined proceedings by telephone, according to the judgment published by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).
When Recorder Matthew O’Grady asked where he was, Tanwar, then a self-employed consultant at Glen Solicitors, confirmed he was in London and went on to say, on at least four separate occasions, that he was at the firm’s offices in Ealing.
The Recorder pressed him repeatedly, at one point asking directly: “So, you’re in Ealing in London, is that right, and that’s why you can’t get to court today?” Tanwar confirmed that he was. He also provided the office’s landline number as a contact, a number he knew he would be unable to answer.
Tanwar argued that his responses amounted to nothing more than “crossed wires” and that he had understood the Recorder to be asking about the firm’s location in order to verify his credentials as a legal representative, rather than asking where he personally was located. The tribunal rejected this explanation, finding it “crystal clear” that Tanwar had sought to give a “misleading impression” of his whereabouts to the court, given that he had made no effort to clarify what was being asked of him during the exchange.
The tribunal also found that Tanwar had breached a court order by failing to attend in person. Tanwar’s argument was that the order did not expressly require physical attendance, a submission the tribunal dismissed, noting that the inclusion of the court’s address made the requirement clear.
Tanwar told the SDT that he had considered himself dis-instructed around a week before the hearing, after his client and the other party had apparently reconciled. However, the day before the hearing he was told it had not been adjourned, and his client “begged” him to appear in order to seek one.
However, the tribunal found that Tanwar “should have known that the court was not bound to vacate a hearing that concerned care proceedings for children and allegations of domestic abuse.”
Striking Tanwar off the roll, the tribunal concluded that this was not simply a “moment of madness”. His misleading responses had been sustained throughout a hearing that lasted almost 45 minutes, and his conduct had disrupted proceedings in a case where the welfare of two children was at stake.
He was also ordered to pay costs of £7,500.