Azfar Bajwa

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

Azfar Bajwa, an unregistered barrister also admitted as a solicitor (later struck off the Roll), faced seven charges of professional misconduct. He admitted Charges 1, 2, 3 and 7, which included failing to inform the BSB of SRA/SDT disciplinary proceedings and findings against him. Charges 3-6 arose from SDT findings that he facilitated abuse of litigation by bringing unarguable judicial review claims to thwart lawful removal/detention, misled clients, breached duties to the Upper Tribunal, and failed to supervise fee earners. The Tribunal found no dishonesty (expressly disavowed by the BSB and not found by the SDT); Charges 4 and 6 concerned lack of integrity only. The Tribunal found all charges proved and disbarred Bajwa on Charges 3, 4, 5 and 6, imposing no separate sanction on Charges 1, 2 and 7. Had those charges stood alone, fines of £3,000 each (Charges 1 and 2) and £30,000 (Charge 7) would have been imposed. An order under rE227 was made preventing the BSB from issuing a practising certificate pending any appeal.

Duties found breached:

• Overriding duty to the court
• No taking unfair advantage
• No conflict between current clients
• Self-report to the regulator
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report

Aggravating factors:

• Pre-meditation/deliberate abuse of process
• Motive of financial gain (desire to grow business)
• Persistent conduct over a lengthy period of time
• Undermining of the profession in the eyes of the public
• Conduct took place after clear warnings from the Administrative Court and Court of Appeal (Hamid, Grace, Akram)
• Clients misled as to prospects of success
• Impact on judicial system and public purse

Mitigating factors:

• Admissions on Charges 1, 2, 3 and 7
• Witness statement and submissions of the respondent
• No evidence of any client complaining
• All clients paid privately
• No evidence of any applicant/claimant evading ultimate removal
• Only one wasted costs order made against the firm (Client 8)