Privacy Settings

“PART A – Governing Principles

The DIFC Courts (“the Court”) were established to uphold the laws of the DIFC and to advance the rule of law by ensuring the just and effective resolution of disputes within the Court’s jurisdiction. By registering with the DIFC Courts to practice in the Court, each individual registered legal practitioner (“Practitioner”) undertakes to act with integrity and independence in support of the Court and the wider community that it serves.

The right of any Practitioner to practice in the Court is conditional upon:

PART B – Duties Owed to the Court

PART E – General Duties

PART F – Sanctions for Breach of the Code

PART G – Matters Affecting Registration

“2. This Claim is brought on behalf of the Registry against Mr. Shaun Gregory Morgan (hereafter “Mr. Morgan”) and Franklin Morgan Legal Associates LLC (hereafter “FMLA” or “the Company”) for the reasons set out below:

“101. The first limb of the case against Mr Morgan relies upon Article 40 of the Code, and the proposition that he has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment and has been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty or fraud. This raises the question of whether the Shaun Gregory Morgan who was registered as a practitioner of the DIFC Courts is the same Shaun Gregory Morgan who was convicted of offences of dishonesty on his plea of guilty in the United States District Court in Utah in 2009.

102. I am satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that the Shaun Gregory Morgan who was convicted of offences of dishonesty in Utah in 2009 and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 60 months is one and the same as the Shaun Gregory Morgan who was registered as a practitioner of this Court. The evidence establishes that the person convicted of fraud in Utah in 2009 was from New Zealand, which is of course where the person who was registered as a practitioner was born. While one can conceive of the possibility that there might be two persons with the same name, the prospect that the person who is convicted for fraud in Utah and the person who was registered as a practitioner of this Court under the same name were both born in New Zealand seems very remote.

103. This conclusion is reinforced by Mr Morgan’s response to the allegation. In his written statements he conspicuously failed to assert, definitively, that he was not the person who was convicted of fraud in Utah. Rather, his statements were concerned with disparaging the evidence upon which the Registrar relied, based upon an asserted inconsistency between the date of release and the length of the term of imprisonment imposed. Further, and significantly, in Mr Morgan’s first statement, in a response which is clearly directed to the Registrar’s allegation that he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the United States, he stated:

“Furthermore, if requested it would have been provided in a closed meeting with the Registrar that on December 9 2012, I received an exoneration from the US Department of Justice which was given under a sealed order pursuant to a very serious misconduct by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation.”

104. 9 December 2012 is one day before the documents establish that the Shaun Gregory Morgan who was imprisoned for fraud in Utah was released from prison. It seems most unlikely that the connection between these two dates is coincidental. Rather, in the context in which the statement above was made, it seems clear that it was intended by Mr Morgan to relate to, and answer, the allegation that he had been imprisoned for fraud. Of course, such an assertion is entirely inconsistent with the proposition that he was not the Shaun Gregory Morgan who was in fact imprisoned for fraud three years earlier. Between making this allegation in December 2023, and the hearing in March 2024, Mr Morgan must have come to appreciate this inconsistency, which is why, when questioned about it, he asserted that the exoneration related to 52 offences which were apparently unrelated to the charges in Utah.

105. I do not accept any of Mr Morgan’s statements on this topic. If the offences in respect of which he was granted exoneration were unrelated to the charges in Utah, there is no reason why he would have referred to them in his first statement. Further, even though Mr Morgan asserts that he was given documents under seal to prove his exoneration, no such document has ever been produced to the Court, and the explanation given by Mr Morgan for that failure is utterly implausible.

106. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Morgan’s statements in relation to his asserted exoneration are a complete concoction, devised in a misguided and ill-considered attempt to answer the allegation relating to his imprisonment for fraud in Utah.

107. My conclusion on this topic is further corroborated by Mr Morgan’s extraordinary prevarication during the hearing, when question about imprisonment in the United States, and which I have set out above. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that his persistent refusal to answer a simple and direct question, put to him many times, was because of his concern with respect to the potential ramifications of making a false statement to the Court. His evasive answers gave him time to consider the course which he should follow although, in the result, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that his assertion that he had only ever been in prison for driving offences in the United States is a complete concoction designed to explain his prevarication. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Morgan has quite deliberately lied to the Court in relation to his imprisonment in the United States.

108. As the fact of his imprisonment in the United States invokes the application of Article 40 of the Code, it is unnecessary to consider whether the evidence establishes that Mr Morgan was also imprisoned in Switzerland – a topic upon which the evidence is less clear. It is sufficient to observe that, as I am satisfied of his imprisonment in the United States, pursuant to Article 40 of the Code I am empowered to terminate Mr Morgan’s right to remain enrolled on the Register of Practitioners.

109. The second limb of the Registrar’s claim against Mr Morgan is based upon Article 38, and the assertion that Mr Morgan has committed various breaches of the Code. Those breaches essentially lie in his application for registration as a practitioner on the basis of representations which he knew to be false relating to his registration as a legal practitioner in various jurisdictions in the United States, and in reliance upon a forged document attesting to his good standing before the Court of Appeals of Maryland. His failure to disclose his conviction and imprisonment for fraud is another aspect of his contraventions of the Code.

110. On the evidence before the Court, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Morgan has never been admitted as a legal practitioner in any of the jurisdictions to which he referred in his application for registration and that he provided a forged Certificate of Good Standing in support of his application, and failed to disclose his prior conviction and imprisonment for fraud. I am also satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Morgan compounded those contraventions of the Code by supplying two more forged certificates to Mr Al Marri, who then supplied them to the Court. Mr Morgan provided another forged document to the Court in February 2024. The contraventions were further compounded by Mr Morgan’s repeated assertions that he is indeed registered as a practitioner in the United States, although he has never produced any legitimate document to substantiate that assertion. By the time of the hearing on 14 March 2024, Mr Morgan had had almost four months to produce legitimate documents substantiating his admission to practice from the time when questions were first raised in mid-November 2023. His explanation for not producing such documents is utterly implausible and I reject it.

111. Mr Morgan’s conduct gives rise to the following contraventions of the Code:

“112. The claim against FMLA is more confined. As already noted, the claim is essentially based upon FMLA’s production of forged and fraudulent certificates to the Court without making any enquiry as to the veracity of those certificates at a time when it must have been aware that the question of Mr Morgan’s entitlement to registration was under investigation. That conduct is exacerbated by the robust and false statements made by Mr Al Marri at the time, in his capacity as Managing Partner of the firm, to the effect that he could personally confirm that the allegations made against Mr Morgan were baseless, when he had no grounds for making that assertion. Those statements were repeatedly made to the Court and also to another firm of practitioners.

113. Mr Al Marri admitted these allegations during the hearing, in the terms which I have set out above. It is clear from the statements that he made to the Court that he made no enquiry whatever with respect to the veracity of the documents which he provided to the Court, or for the purpose of substantiating the very firm assertions which he had made to the effect that the allegations against Mr Morgan were baseless. I do not accept his assertion that he was not aware that there was a suspicion that Mr Morgan had provided forged documents at the time he was being asked to provide documents to prove Mr Morgan’s registration as a practitioner in the United States. But even if Mr Al Marri was telling the truth in that regard, it speaks of such extraordinary gullibility and naivete as to reveal unfitness to manage a firm entitled to represent parties in proceedings in the DIFC Courts.

114. The evidence falls short of establishing that Mr Al Marri or FMLA knew that Mr Morgan’s claims to registration in the United States were false, but it does establish that neither Mr Al Marri nor the firm made any enquiry with respect to the veracity of those claims before repeating them to the Court and providing forged and fraudulent documents in support of those claims. That conduct constitutes contraventions of the following provisions of the Code:

“115. Systems for the registration of practitioners entitled to practice before Courts are designed to ensure that such practitioners have appropriate qualifications, skills and experience, and appropriate personal qualities of honesty and integrity, and to ensure adherence to appropriate ethical standards. Such systems have the dual purpose of protecting unwitting clients from persons holding themselves out as having the necessary qualifications, skills and experience to properly and adequately represent them in Court proceedings and to ensure that the Court receives the assistance of appropriately qualified practitioners who adhere to ethical standards of practice.

116. If these systems are undermined the administration of justice can be seriously compromised. Unwitting clients may forfeit their entitlement to justice because they are incompetently represented. The Court’s obligation to ensure that all parties are given fair and equal treatment, and the administration of justice can be compromised if a party is incompetently represented.

117. It is no exaggeration to say that the proper administration of systems for the registration of practitioners is fundamental to the effective administration of justice by any Court.

118. This case is an extreme example of a deliberate and calculated attempt to undermine the system for the registration of practitioners before this Court which was successful for a time. Mr Morgan is a charlatan who has not established an entitlement to practice law in any jurisdiction. He is dishonest, completely lacking in integrity, and a fraudster. In these circumstances the only appropriate remedy under each of Articles 38 and 40 is to direct his removal from the Register of Practitioners.

119. As Mr Morgan’s case is clearly within the most serious category of contravention of the provisions of the Code, it is also appropriate that the maximum penalties available under the Code be imposed upon him, being public admonition and a fine of USD15,000.

120. FMLA assisted Mr Morgan in the perpetration of his attempts to deceive the Court and the clients of the firm. In circumstances in which the firm must have been aware that there was a serious question in relation to Mr Morgan’s entitlement to be registered as a practitioner, the firm reiterated his false assertions dogmatically, without any proper basis for doing so. Further, the firm provided forged and fraudulent documents to the Court without making any enquiry whatever as to their veracity, when clearly such enquiry was called for.

121. This conduct falls so far beyond the standards of conduct expected of reputable law firms that it must be concluded that the firm is not fit and proper to remain on the register of firms entitled to represent parties to proceedings before the DIFC Courts. Further, the firm’s participation in conduct which undermined the system for the registration of practitioners strikes at a fundamental basis for the administration of justice by the Court, and brings the case against the firm into the most serious category of contraventions of the Code. It follows that, in addition to directing the removal of the firm from the register of firms entitled to represent parties before the Courts, the maximum penalties available under Article 38 of the Code should be imposed – namely public admonition and a fine of USD 50,000.”