Three lawyers have today been suspended from legal practice after they were found guilty by the Independent Legal Services Commission.

Lawyer, Mohammed Azeem Ud-Dean Sahu Khan has been fined $20,000 and suspended from legal practice for 18 months. 

He will be eligible for a practicing certificate from the 1st of March, 2015.

Khan was charged with Professional Misconduct. 

The case is in relation to Khan using “Bar-at-Law” (Lincoln's Inn) on his letterhead for his law practice. 

During the hearing, Khan admitted the allegation and said that the offending claim of Lincoln's Inn on the letterhead was added by his father. 

Khan confirmed that he is no longer entitled to claim that he is a barrister of Lincoln's Inn as he was only a student member while in the UK but had withdrawn from study and sitting bar finals.  

Suva lawyer, John Rabuku has also been suspended from practice for a period of three months as of today. 

Rabuku has also been fined $500 to be paid to the commission. 

This is to be paid by the 30th of this month and failure to pay by that date will result in a further two months suspension of his practicing certificate.

Rabuku was charged with Professional Misconduct. 

The commission said the charge relates to Rabuku failing to respond to a complaint lodged by a woman within the time stipulated in the notice issued by the Chief Registrar under the Legal Practitioners Decree.

Sigatoka lawyer, Sushil Chand Sharma is suspended for one month from today. 

Sharma is fined $500 and he faces a further two months suspension if the fine is not paid by the 30th of this month.

Sharma was charged with one count of Professional Misconduct. 

It relates to Sharma failing to respond to a complaint by a Feroz Khan within the time stipulated in the notice by the Chief Registrar under the Legal Practitioners Decree.

Sharma accepted the allegation without hesitation and said he had no defense.

Independent Legal Services Commissioner, Justice Paul Madigan said it should be noted by legal practitioners that there can be no excuse for failure to respond to the Registrar's request for information no matter what circumstances the practitioner finds himself in.

Story by: Vijay Narayan