The consumer protection lawyer who was criticised after she defended tenants rights has been ordered to pay a £5,000 fine.
John Murphy was fined £5.25, plus costs and expenses, after a tribunal ruling that he had breached his fiduciary duty to protect consumers.
The consumer protection barrister, who is now the managing director of a company, said he had made “a terrible error of judgment”.
“I am delighted to be cleared of any wrongdoing,” he said.
“The tribunal ruling was based on my personal belief that my client was the victim of unlawful eviction proceedings.”
However, in the light of what is now being revealed about how the case was brought to trial and the evidence presented, I think the court has rightly ruled that I did not breach my duty to act as a fiduciaries to my clients.
“It was an error of judgement to allow my client to remain in the property for so long.”
I sincerely apologise for my actions.
“The court also said that it had “found” that Mr Murphy had failed to comply with a duty to inform the court of any material misrepresentations.”
Mr Murphy has been fined £15,000, plus statutory costs, and will also pay an £8,000 civil penalty,” the court said.
Mr Murphy, who was the barrister for Mr Sibai, Mr Sifani and Mr Worsley, said his case was now being treated “with respect and dignity”.”
My client has been cleared of all charges.
I will now move on with my life and pursue my practice,” he added.
Consumer Protection barrister John Murphy has apologised after he was accused of breaching his fiducial duty to the clients he represented.
Mr Sifanai, of Bournemouth, said Mr Murphy was “shamelessly” using the tribunal to get back at his client.”
He was making a terrible mistake of judgment.
She said the court had found that Mr Sipanai had failed in his duty to tell the court about material misrepresentation.””
This was clearly designed to silence him.”
She said the court had found that Mr Sipanai had failed in his duty to tell the court about material misrepresentation.
“When you are a lawyer, you are responsible for ensuring that you have the proper information and, as a result, that your clients are not misled,” she added.
The barrister was also criticised for using the case to gain “media attention”.
“When a matter is brought to the attention of the media, it is inevitable that you will be brought into the public eye.
This is how he gained media attention,” Ms Sifanyi said.
The court found Mr Murphy breached his duty of care when he told the court that he was “aware of all the details” of the matter but that he “did not know what he was being told” when he was told of it.
Mr Worsly, who lived in the home at the time of the eviction, was also found guilty of breaching that duty.
He has been told that he must pay a fine of £5 a day for the remainder of his term, plus expenses and court costs.
The hearing was adjourned until April 23.
The case was heard by a hearing officer from the Crown Prosecution Service, and a trial date has not yet been set.