New York attorney disbarred for 'elaborate dishonesty'
Wannabe barrister forged documents and lied about experience in 'extraordinary' fraud
A New York lawyer has been disbarred by an independent disciplinary tribunal for charges including dishonesty.
Soma Sengupta, who was called to the Bar by Middle Temple in 2008, was disbarred following convictions in the United States of one felony and two misdemeanours and her subsequent disbarment from the New York Bar.
The convictions relate to possessing forged documents, filing attorney registration forms with false information, and an associated conspiracy charge.
The forged documents were letters of reference, which made false statements about her experience in New York, including stating she was an assistant district attorney, when she was actually a paralegal.
The forged documents and information were used by Sengupta to obtain pupillage in 2008.
The Bar Standards Boards (BSB) investigation in 2009 led to criminal charges being filed in New York. In December 2014, the independent tribunal decided to adjourn the local proceedings, while Sengupta pursued an appeal in New York.
BSB director of professional conduct Sara Jagger said: 'The lengths that Ms Sengupta went to, to embellish her experience and qualifications are extraordinary. Her elaborate dishonesty is clearly incompatible with membership of the Bar.
'Ms Sengupta never became a registered barrister in England and Wales because her pupillage was suspended. However, the tribunal's decision to order disbarment is right because honesty and integrity of barristers are essential to public confidence in the profession.'
Jagger continued: 'We acknowledge the matter has taken some time to conclude. However, the extent of similar dishonest conduct in the United States meant there were further hearings to be concluded there.
'A tribunal judge rightly ordered that proceedings in England and Wales should be put on hold awaiting the outcome of the proceedings in the USA. It was important to allow those hearings to come to a resolution so that the disciplinary tribunal were aware of all the circumstances.'