Past disciplinary findings

Mr Emil Lixandru, a barrister, behaved in a way that was contrary to his duty to the court in the administration of justice, and failed to take reasonable steps to avoid wasting court time when he advanced a Judicial Review case on behalf of his client by filing a claim form on 16 July 2024, and assisted his client to file materially the same claim form on 24 July 2024, both of which relied on the same arguments which had failed in previous underlying proceedings. The Administrative Court found that the claim was not properly arguable and was an abuse of process, as set out in a Hamid decision on 18 December 2024.

Mr Emil Lixandru, a barrister, failed to act with integrity and/or acted in a way that could reasonably be seen by the public to undermine his integrity when he advanced a Judicial Review case on behalf of his client by filing a claim form on 16 July 2024, and assisted his client to file materially the same claim form on 24 July 2024, both of which relied on the same arguments which had failed in previous underlying proceedings. The Administrative Court found that the claim was not properly arguable and was an abuse of process, as set out in a Hamid decision on 18 December 2024.

Mr Emil Lixandru, a barrister, behaved in a way likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in him or in the profession when he advanced a Judicial Review case on behalf of his client by filing a claim form on 16 July 2024, and assisted his client to file materially the same claim form on 24 July 2024, both of which relied on the same arguments which had failed in previous underlying proceedings. The Administrative Court found that the claim was not properly arguable and was an abuse of process, as set out in a Hamid decision on 18 December 2024.

Mr Emil Lixandru, a barrister, failed to act in his client’s best interests when he accepted a substantial fee from his client in respect of lodging a Judicial Review claim which, on his own account, he believed to be a waste of his client’s money. The Administrative Court found that the claim was not properly arguable and was an abuse of process, as set out in a Hamid decision on 18 December 2024

Mr Emil Lixandru, a barrister, failed to act with integrity and/or acted in a way that could reasonably be seen by the public to undermine his integrity when he accepted a substantial fee from his client in respect of lodging a Judicial Review claim which, on his own account, he believed to be a waste of his client’s money. The Administrative Court found that the claim was not properly arguable and was an abuse of process, as set out in a Hamid decision on 18 December 2024.

Mr Emil Lixandru, a barrister, behaved in a way likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in him or in the profession when he accepted a substantial fee from his client in respect of lodging a Judicial Review claim which, on his own account, he believed to be a waste of his client’s money. The Administrative Court found that the claim was not properly arguable and was an abuse of process, as set out in a Hamid decision on 18 December 2024.

Mr Emil Lixandru, a barrister, behaved in a way likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in him or in the profession by carrying out a reserved legal activity when not authorised to do so when, on or around 16 July 2024, he submitted a Judicial Review claim on behalf of his client and signed the Statement of Truth naming himself as his client’s representative. At the relevant time, Mr Lixandru did not have the necessary conducting litigation extension on his practising certificate to enable him to be able to carry out this reserved legal activity.