Priyank Tanwar was struck off after misleading the Leicester Family Court and failing to attend
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has struck off Priyank Tanwar after finding that he acted dishonestly by misleading a Family Court judge about his location during a children law hearing.
In a judgment dated 2 February 2026, the Tribunal upheld allegations brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority concerning Mr Tanwar’s conduct at a final hearing on 24 August 2023 at Leicester County Court.
At the time, Mr. Tanwar was working as a self-employed consultant for Glen Solicitors Limited and had conducted private law proceedings under the Children Act 1989. The court had listed a contested final hearing for 24 August 2023 before Recorder Matthew O’Grady, directing that parties attend at the Family Court in Leicester.
Mr. Tanwar did not attend in person. Instead, he joined the hearing by telephone from Munich, Germany, having travelled there on the morning of the hearing. During exchanges with the Recorder, he repeatedly stated that he was in Ealing, London, and suggested he was at his firm’s office. The Tribunal found that this information was false and that he knowingly misled the court.
Applying the test for dishonesty set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Tanwar knew he was not in London when he told the judge he was. It rejected his explanation that he believed the judge was asking for the firm’s office address to confirm his credentials.
The Tribunal also applied the integrity principles from Wingate v SRA and found that misleading a judge amounted to a serious failure to meet the ethical standards expected of a solicitor. It was determined that his conduct breached multiple SRA Principles and provisions of the Code of Conduct, including the duty not to mislead the court and the obligation not to waste court time.
In a second allegation, the Tribunal found that Mr. Tanwar failed to attend the hearing in person as required by the court order dated 27 July 2023 and failed to arrange suitable representation. It rejected his argument that the order did not expressly require physical attendance and held that the inclusion of the court address made the requirement clear.
The Tribunal described misleading a judge as misconduct of the highest order. It found that the dishonesty was sustained during the hearing and was not a momentary lapse. Although Mr. Tanwar had no previous disciplinary findings and provided character references, the Tribunal concluded that no exceptional circumstances existed to justify a lesser sanction.
Mr Tanwar was struck off the Roll of Solicitors and ordered to pay £7,500 in costs.