I have previously
talked about tragic cases where lawyers, often young and inexperienced,
have found themselves in difficulties when something goes wrong. In the worst
cases, we have seen careers brought to an end as a result of desperate attempts
to hide the error. Most recently I covered the case where deadlines had been
missed by a few days and where the matter might well have been capable of
resolution –
This case and others raised the importance of openness. I have
said repeatedly that honesty is always the best option. My mantra has been that
mistakes are not the end of the world but trying to cover up the mistakes, can
be.
It was with some horror that I read the unfortunate case of
paralegal, Nasrullah Mursalin. He made a mistake. He lodged a bundle of documents
in an immigration case. He wrongly included papers relating to family
proceedings concerning children. In the absence of permission from the Family Court this was contempt of court. It was a genuine error. He thought he was
complying with a directions order. The immigration tribunal referred him to the
family court.
It came before HHJ Judge Moradifar who said –
“This
breach is so serious that in my judgment it can only attract a custodial
sentence.”
He was given
a 6-month suspended prison sentence for a genuine misunderstanding. So much for
my advice! This could well have ended any hope of a career at the bar.
Thankfully
the sentence has been quashed by the Court of Appeal. The appeal judges acknowledged
that it was wrong to file the sensitive documents but also that there had
been no significant consequences. Baker LJ noted that the judge had not
actually seen the documents in question. There was a failure to set out the
details of the contempt and there was a clear suggestion that his employers
were at fault. There had been procedural failings in relation to the issue of
contempt that were arguably as serious as those in relation to the documents.
The sentence was set aside and the order
made against Mr Mursalin was to be removed from the record.
This is
clearly a correct decision which brings us back to the real world. The case again
highlights the responsibilities on managers to ensure that young workers are
not exposed to this type of incident. Where was the supervision? Where was the support?
Why did nobody with full knowledge of the rules not check what was being filed?
If anything,
this reinforces the view that legal businesses must cultivate an environment on
openness which can support their staff and also avoid incidents like this occurring
in the first place.
