A lawyer was given a second suspended sentence in as many months for defrauding a client who had paid him for testamentary searches.

Reuben Micallef, 41, from St Julian's, who has lost his warrant and is barred from practising, was convicted of misappropriating money given to him by a neighbour in connection with research work. The crimes took place in 2007 and 2008 and the amount misappropriated reached almost €7,000.

Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera noted that Mr Micallef deserved an effective jail term, especially since he had committed the crime in his role as lawyer.

She decided to suspend imprisonment because he had a clean criminal record and had reimbursed the entire amount misappropriated. She sentenced Mr Micallef to 18 months in jail suspended for four years.

This was not the first time Mr Micallef had fallen foul of the law. In 2007, he was accused of defrauding several companies. His warrant was suspended for three months in 2009 and subsequently revoked.

Last May, Mr Micallef received a two-year jail sentence suspended for four years after a court found him guilty of defrauding a client, using the money as a bank guarantee for a loan he had taken out.

On that occasion, Mr Micallef had faced a total of 12 charges, including that of defrauding a pensioner out of €25,600, misappropriation and forging documents. In the latest case, Mr Micallef was convicted of defrauding Martha Sammut, who had commissioned him to carry out legal searches on her uncle's will to determine whether she had been entitled to any inheritance.

Ms Sammut told the court she had paid up every time the lawyer asked for money.

She had also borrowed money from third parties to keep up with his monetary demands.

Despite the payments, the results of the searches were never handed over for one reason or another, including that Mr Micallef was ill.

It was only after she involved another two lawyers that the amount was gradually refunded.

In handing down judgment, Magistrate Scerri Herrera noted that Mr Micallef's criminal action cast a bad light on the legal profession and she considered the conduct censurable.

She noted that the amount involved had now been refunded, however.