Atta-Ullah Khan

• Application 10251-2009
• Admitted 2003
• Hearing 2 March 2010
• Reasons 30 April 2010

The SDT ordered that the respondent, of Woodford Green, Essex IG8, should pay a fine of £4,000. The respondent had failed and/or delayed in the delivery of an accountant’s report for the period ending 31 March 2008, contrary to section 34 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) and the rules made thereunder; he had breached the terms of rule 1 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007 in that he had failed to comply with a condition attached to his practising certificate regarding the delivery of his accountant’s reports; contrary to rule 1 and/or rule 20.03 of the code he had failed to comply with an expectation of an adjudicator dated 22 October 2008, as to the filing of his accountant’s report for the period ending 31March 2008; he had failed and/or delayed in the delivery of an accountant’s report for the period ending 30t September 2008, contrary to section 34 of the act and the rules made thereunder; he had failed to maintain accounting records and, in particular, he had failed to maintain a client cashbook, contrary to rule 32(1), (2), (4) and (5) of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998; he had failed to carry out the required reconciliations in breach of rule 3 2(7) of the rules; he had made payments from client bank account in excess of funds held for the client(s), contrary to rule 22(5) of the rules; contrary to rule 1 and/or rule 20.03 of the code, he had failed to comply with an expectation of an adjudicator dated 8 December 2008 as to the delivery of documentation relating to his accounting records; he had failed and/or delayed in the delivery of an accountant’s report for the period ending 31 March 2008 in respect of RFK Solicitors, due for delivery on or before 26 July 2008, contrary to section 34 of the act and the rules made thereunder; contrary to rule 1 of the code, he had failed to comply with an expectation of an adjudicator dated 26t November 2008 as to the delivery of his accountant’s report for the period ending 31 March 2008 in respect of RFK Solicitors; he had failed to comply with a condition attached to his 2007/2008 practising certificate as regards the filing of half-yearly accountant’s reports; and he had failed to keep accounting records properly written up, contrary to rule 32 of the rules.

The SDT found that punctilious compliance with the Solicitors Accounts Rules was an important prerequisite for a solicitor in private practice. Any failure to comply whatever the circumstances was to be regarded as serious. Full compliance was important in order to ensure that the public was protected, and the filing of accountant’s reports enabled the Solicitors Regulation Authority to be sure that when a reporting solicitor held clients’ money it was not thereby placed at risk. A failure to comply with that important requirement prevented the SRA from fulfilling its duty as a regulator. The SDT took into account the respondent’s unfortunate relationship with his former accountants and gave him credit for his admissions and the references written in his support. It was, however, dismayed that the respondent did not appear to have learnt anything from his earlier appearance before it in June 2006.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £10,000.