Two prominent lawyers, Rajendra Chaudhry and Kini Maraiwai, have been suspended from legal practice for the next few years after they were found guilty by the Independent Legal Services Commission.

Commissioner Justice Paul Madigan has ordered that Rajendra Chaudhry be suspended from practice as a legal practitioner in Fiji until 1st March 2017, that he be publicly reprimanded, that he pay costs to the commission of $1,000 and that he only be recertified as a practitioner by the Chief Registrar on the proof of having undertaken five hours of training in legal ethics by an institution or a tutor acceptable to the Chief Registrar.

Chaudhry has been allowed to remain in practice for the next 21 days until October 26th.

However, Justice Madigan said in that period, Chaudhry is not to reappear in court, nor accept any new instructions from either existing or new clients.

Kini Maraiwai has been suspended from practice as a legal practitioner in Fiji with immediate effect until 1st March 2016.

Justice Madigan has also ordered that Maraiwai be publicly reprimanded, he pay costs to the commission of $1,000, and that he only be recertified as a practitioner by the Chief Registrar on the proof of having undertaken five hours of training in legal ethics.

Maraiwai was found guilty of two counts of unsatisfactory professional conduct and one count of professional misconduct.

Rajendra Chaudhry was found guilty of one count of professional misconduct and one count of unsatisfactory professional conduct.

Justice Madigan said in his mitigation, Maraiwai still refused to understand the seriousness of his conduct in claiming that as there was no deceit or fraud practiced on the client, Muskaan Balaggan, he should be rewarded with a lenient penalty.

The Independent Legal Services Commissioner said Chaudhry also does not appear to understand the seriousness of his conduct.

Charges against Kini Maraiwai are in relation to Maraiwai preparing an affidavit of a Muskaan Balaggan and witnessing the document himself without having it witnessed by an independent legal practitioner or Commissioner of Oaths.

Balaggan swore an affidavit on the 4th of July last year that the allegations of rape and sexual abuse she had made against Rajendra Chaudhry on the 13th of June last year were untrue and she withdrew them.

Justice Madigan said the importance of not acting in the manner that Maraiwai did is brought to the fore when it later transpired that Balaggan made another statement signed before a Commissioner of Oaths which was a direct contradiction of the reasons given in the earlier affidavit.

Another charge dealt with Maraiwai failing to act in the best interest of his client Balaggan by instructing Rajendra Chaudhry to appear on the 15th of September last year for mitigation being aware that Chaudhry was the victim of the false complaint made by Balaggan and therefore was a conflict of interest.  

Rajendra Chaudhry’s first charge relates to him agreeing to act as a counsel in Muskaan Balaggan’s court case from the 15th to the 29th September last year.

Chaudhry’s next charge of unsatisfactory professional conduct relates to him showing discourtesy to the High Court, namely to Justice Daniel Goundar on or about the 15th of April 2012 in his response to an enquiry made by the Chief Registrar under the Legal Practitioners Decree.


Story by: Vijay Narayan


Earlier: Chaudhry and Maraiwai found guilty

Two Suva lawyers, Rajendra Chaudhry and Kini Maraiwai, have been found guilty by the Independent Legal Services Commission.

Commissioner Justice Paul Madigan said the one count of professional misconduct and one count of unsatisfactory conduct have been established against Rajendra Chaudhry and the two counts of unsatisfactory conduct and professional misconduct have been established against Maraiwai.

The first count of unsatisfactory professional conduct against Kini Maraiwai is in relation to Maraiwai preparing an affidavit of a Muskaan Balaggan and witnessing the document himself without having it witnessed by an independent legal practitioner or Commissioner of Oaths.

Balaggan swore an affidavit on the 4th of July last year that the allegations of rape and sexual abuse she had made against Rajendra Chaudhry on the 13th of June last year were untrue and she withdrew them.

Justice Madigan said the importance of not acting in the manner that Maraiwai did is brought to the fore when it later transpired that Balaggan made another statement signed before a Commissioner of Oaths which was a direct contradiction of the reasons given in the earlier affidavit.

The second count of unsatisfactory professional conduct deals with Maraiwai continuing to act for Balaggan who was charged for giving false information to a public officer on the basis of the affidavit which had been prepared and witnessed by Maraiwai.

The third count of professional misconduct is also established against Maraiwai.

This deals with Maraiwai failing to act in the best interest of his client Balaggan by instructing Rajendra Chaudhry to appear on the 15th of September 2011 for mitigation being aware that Chaudhry was the victim of the false complaint made by Balaggan and therefore was a conflict of interest.   

Rajendra Chaudhry’s first charge relates to him agreeing to act as a counsel in Muskaan Balaggan’s court case from the 15th to 29th September last year.

This is a case in which Chaudhry was the victim of a charge of giving false information to a public servant.

Chaudhry’s next charge of unsatisfactory professional conduct relates to him showing discourtesy to the High Court, namely to Justice Daniel Goundar on or about the 15th of April 2012 in his response to an enquiry made by the Chief Registrar under the Legal Practitioners Decree.

The charge said such conduct is a breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Practice of the Legal Practitioners Decree 2009.

Justice Madigan said such assertions of impropriety, bias and vindictiveness against a judge are totally unacceptable apart from being unethical.

He said Rajendra Chaudhry has been in practice long enough to know that any decision, ruling or judgement of a judge is appealable and that his allegations could be aired on appeal, no doubt in more temperate and neutral terms.

The sentencing will be delivered on notice by Justice Madigan.


Story by: Vijay Narayan