Barrister's ban for Oxford University lie overturned

Getty Images A lawyer holds a barrister's wig.Getty Images
Anurag Mohindru KC falsely claimed to have attended the University of Oxford

A barrister who was kicked out of the profession after falsely claiming he attended the University of Oxford during a job interview has won a High Court appeal against the decision.

Anurag Mohindru KC was disbarred last October after a disciplinary tribunal found he had brought the profession into "disrepute".

While acknowledging he had been dishonest, Mohindru challenged the decision, claiming the tribunal should have found the case to be "exceptional" and warranting a less severe punishment.

In a High Court ruling, the disbarment was quashed and substituted to a suspension which expired on Tuesday, meaning Mohindru can return to the profession.

The original decision came after an anonymous complaint was submitted to the Bar Standards Board (BSB) in 2021.

It said the barrister had lied about attending the university during a job interview in 2013, before editing his CV to reflect this.

In his ruling, High Court judge Mr Justice Johnson said during an interview at a new barristers' chambers in 2013, one of the interviewers incorrectly believed Mohindru, a keen cricketer, had attended Oxford University and played cricket for them.

Mohindru falsely replied he had, before a request to see his CV led to him adding an entry that said "Medicine, Oxford University, 1993-1994", which was false.

Johnson said this "was created after the interview to bolster the false statement made in the interview".

Mohindru later withdrew his application to join the chambers and never used the document again.

In August 2021, the BSB received an undated and anonymous letter alleging that Mohindru had lied in interview about attending Oxford - which a tribunal eventually found proven last year.

In his ruling, Johnson said the disciplinary tribunal had made a "material misdirection" when considering the passage of time and the "nature and extent of the dishonesty in this case".

The judge also said disbarment was "disproportionate" given the "isolated" nature of the dishonesty.