Mohindru KC - High Court judgment

Anurag Mohindru is a King's Counsel (KC) - one of those lawyers (usually, but not always, barristers) granted that pre-eminent status by the Crown. They are appointed via a process set out at King's Counsel Appointments | Excellence in Advocacy

Mohindru was called to the Bar of England and Wales in 2004 and was appointed KC ("took silk") in 2020. 

Mohindru appealed to the High Court against an order of a disciplinary tribunal of the Bar Standards Board (BSB) that he be disbarred. The BSB decision was in October 2025 and the conduct in question took place over a short period of time in February 2013.

The High Court judgment is at - Mohindru v The Bar Standards Board [2026] EWHC 1604 (Admin) (30 June 2026).

The details of the conduct

may be seen in para 4 to 10 of the High Court judgment. 

Mohindru did not challenge the tribunal's finding of dishonesty in respect of his conduct but argued that the tribunal ought to have found that this was an exceptional case which merited a lesser outcome than disbarment.

After a detailed analysis of the facts and case law, the High Court (Mr Justice Johnson) found in favour of Mohindru.

Johnson J said (para 70) - 'Dishonesty by a lawyer ordinarily strikes at the foundation of the relationship of trust on which the administration of justice depends. Save in exceptional circumstances, the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession requires removal from practice. But the principle is not a mechanical rule. The question remains what sanction is necessary, now, to maintain public confidence in the profession and in the administration of justice. The lapse of time does not excuse the dishonesty. Nor does subsequent good conduct expunge it. But those matters are relevant to an assessment of what is required to maintain public confidence in providers of regulated legal services. The public is capable of understanding the difference between a practitioner who has recently acted dishonestly, or whose dishonesty forms part of a continuing pattern, and one whose misconduct occurred many years ago, has not been repeated, and whose subsequent conduct has demonstrated a sustained record of integrity. In such a case, public confidence may be maintained by a sanction which marks the gravity of the dishonesty without permanently excluding the practitioner from the profession.'

and at para 71 - 'The question is thus not whether the passage of time and Mr Mohindru's subsequent good conduct excuses or expunges an isolated instance of dishonesty. It is whether, viewed in the round, disbarment is the minimum sanction required to uphold confidence in the profession. On the exceptional facts of the case, a lesser sanction can adequately mark the misconduct, protect the public, and maintain the reputation of the profession. That being the case, it would be wrong to impose the ultimate sanction merely because dishonesty is present. Mr Mohindru has been suspended from practice for 8½ months. That is a sufficient sanction.

Johnson J then substituted a suspension from practice from 7 October 2025 until the date of the judgment. The period was already served. No other period of suspension or other sanction was imposed.

Comment:

The High Court's decision has been viewed with dismay by some who argue that ANY dishonesty merits disbarment. Johnson J noted that - 'Save in exceptional circumstances, the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession requires removal from practice.'

The judge found such circumstances and they are listed in the judgment at para 69

(1) The two instances of dishonesty each took place within a short period of time: the first lasting at most a few seconds, the latter involving a period of around 30 minutes. Together, they amount to an isolated instance of dishonesty.

(2) The dishonesty did not concern the conduct of regulated legal services. Nor did it concern money. Nor did it amount to a criminal offence.

(3) Mr Mohindru did not secure any material gain from the dishonesty. Nor did he intend to secure any material gain.

(4) The initial lie was likely a panicked answer to an uncomfortable question. The subsequent lie merely bolstered the initial lie.

(5) The lies did not cause any material harm to anyone, aside from Mr Mohindru and his family.

(6) Nobody at the time considered it was sufficiently serious to report the lies to the Bar Standards Board.

(7) This all took place 13½ years ago.

(8) No complaint was made for 8½ years, and there is no evidence of what precipitated the decision to make the complaint.

(9) Mr Mohindru is not dishonest. He has shown over a two decade career that he has personal and professional integrity and that he is a highly regarded and successful silk.

(10) Mr Mohindru has been greatly punished. He has suffered the mortification and humiliation of a public finding that he was dishonest in 2013, with a resultant considerable fall from grace. He has been suspended for 8½ months with significant consequential loss of income. He has to pay costs of £36,155.

Point s (6), (7) and (8) seem particularly noteworthy. What motivated the complaint is unknown and the complainant was anonymous. There is a suggestion in the judgment that the complaint may have included an element of malice - see paras 9 to 11.  The substantial time lapse is also an unusual factor.

The judgment ought not to be read adversely as if the High Court has in sone way supported dishonesty. That is far from the case and the court imposed a suspension. The barrister has suffered professional sanction and that inevitably brings damage to career. Whether Mr Mohindru can recover from that remains to be seen.

Article:

Dishonesty and exceptional circumstances – Mohindru KC v BSB - 4 New Square Chambers

Links:

Mohindru v The Bar Standards Board [2026] EWHC 1604 (Admin) (30 June 2026).

Bar Standards Board - Disciplinary Finding Details - Disciplinary Finding - Anurag Mohindru - 9/12/2025

KC successfully appeals disbarment over Oxford University claim | Law Society Gazette