Prosecutors have charged one of London’s leading clinical negligence lawyers with a £600,000 tax fraud that they say spanned more than 10 years., reports Global Legal Post.
Rohan Pershad – a Queen’s Counsel at 39 Essex Street, who took silk in 2011 – is charged with deliberately failing to declare VAT payments on services he billed between June 1999 and 24 September 2011, the Crown Prosecution Service said.
The Lawyer newspaper reports that during the 12-year period, the CPS said Mr Pershad ‘knowingly’ avoided paying the tax.
Prospect of conviction
Keri Ashworth-Beaumont, prosecutor for the CPS central fraud division said: ‘This decision to prosecute was taken in accordance with the code for Crown Prosecutors. After careful consideration of all the evidence, I am satisfied there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest to prosecute this case.’
Mr Pershad has instructed Angus McBride – partner at London-based white collar crime specialist law firm Kinsgley Napley — to represent him. The firm responded to the allegations in a statement on Mr Pershad’s behalf: ‘The CPS has issued this summons while I am still providing HMRC and the CPS with further information and representations setting out why I am not guilty of any offence. I am extremely disappointed that the CPS has seen fit to issue a press release whilst discussions are on-going.
‘For the avoidance of doubt, I deny any dishonest activity in relation to my tax affairs and if a decision is made to pursue this matter in court, I will defend myself vigorously.’

Baby barristers
Meanwhile, the Bar Standards Board is planning to allow barristers with fewer than three years’ call to by-pass solicitors and take instructions directly from clients, in what would be a further erosion of the tradition divide between the two branches of the English legal profession.
According to a report in Legal Week newspaper, it is understood that at a meeting last week Patricia Robertson QC, chairwoman of the board’s standards committee, said the current rules – which prevented younger barristers from taking advantage of relaxed rules on direct client access — had been introduced in 2004 with ‘a degree of nervousness’ as they were so novel, and that some aspects now appear to be ‘overcautious’.
However, the Law Society – which represents solicitors in England — has previously opposed removing the current three-year limit. Responding to a consultation last March, it said: ‘Dealing directly with clients requires a level of maturity and expertise which the majority of entrants to the profession cannot be expected to possess.’
The BSB will submit the so called ‘baby barrister’ proposals to the Legal Services Board next month.