A solicitor who was caught plotting a murder after police bugged his private conversations with suspected terrorist clients has been suspended from practising by the Law Society.

Law Society president Barry Finlay said that Manmohan Sandhu, who is in custody awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to incitement to murder, perverting the course of justice and using his legal position to pass on information to terrorists, had “betrayed his profession and his professional colleagues”.

An emergency meeting of the Law Society Council was held yesterday afternoon after the shamed lawyer admitted inciting others to murder taxi driver Jonathan Hillier as he recovered in hospital in 2005 from a failed attempt on his life. Sandhu, from Colby Avenue in Londonderry, also pleaded guilty at Belfast Crown Court to three counts of perverting the course of justice by attempting to frustrate police investigations into the UVF murders of Jameson Lockhart and Andrew Cully and the attempted murder of Mr Hillier, and using his role as a solicitor to keep members of a terrorist organisation informed of the progress of the police investigations into terrorist related offences.

The Law Society Council decided to suspend Sandhu’s practising certificate until an independent disciplinary tribunal is held. Following the tribunal Sandhu is expected to be permanently banned from practising.

Mr Finlay said the Law Society “deplores” the actions of Sandhu “who has acted in the most heinous and despicable manner”.

He added: “The society expects from solicitors the highest standards of probity, integrity and professional conduct including, in particular, upholding the rule of law. The actions of Mr Sandhu are wholly unacceptable especially in a solicitor, an officer of the court. He has betrayed his profession and his professional colleagues.

“Solicitors who are convicted of a serious criminal offence through the courts can expect to be referred by the society to the Independent Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.”

Police used powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to spy on Sandhu’s conversations with his clients in 2005 and 2006.

Sandhu had claimed that it was against the law for police to record his discussions with his clients because of legal professional privilege. However, it is understood he decided to change his plea following a recent ruling by the House of Lords that the spy law does allow for the surveillance of privileged communications.

Legal sources have told the Belfast Telegraph that Sandhu could face between 10 and 15 years behind bars.

The Indian-born lawyer rubbed his eyes and slumped back into his seat in the dock after entering his change of plea yesterday. He kept his eyes on the ground as he was led from the dock in handcuffs. He is due to be sentenced next week.

The police officer in charge of the case, Detective Chief Superintendent Derek Williamson, said: “It is a conviction that should not be underestimated. It is noteworthy for a number of reasons, not least as it demonstrates that no-one is or should be above the law.”

Case that shocked the legal world

This is the first known occasion in Northern Ireland that a lawyer’s confidential conversations with clients have been bugged and it has placed one of the more shadowy aspects of policing practice firmly in the spotlight.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000 is the legislation police employed to carry out their surveillance and intelligence gathering operation against Sandhu.

The high-profile case against the lawyer raised legitimate questions about the impact of RIPA on the common law right of legal professional privilege and the right of a person who has been detained in a police station or in a prison to consult a lawyer privately.

Sandhu’s legal team intended to challenge the admissibility of evidence gathered in such a way. Sandhu claimed that it was against the law for police to record his discussions with his clients because of legal professional privilege.

However, he changed his plea following a ruling by the House of Lords that the spy law does allow for the surveillance of privileged communications.

Lord Carswell in the House of Lords last month said that legal professional privilege cannot be absolute, that it has to have exceptions.

“If it were not possible to exercise covert surveillance of legal consultations where it is suspected on sufficiently strong grounds that the privilege was being abused, the law would confer an unjustified immunity on dishonest lawyers,” he said.

More than one legal source has said they have always suspected their confidential conversations with clients were being monitored, but the fact such material has been successfully used as evidence in a case against a solicitor has shocked many lawyers and unnerved their clients.