Bulbinder Singh Bagri, Siraj Khalil, Sarfraz Khalil and Nadeem Malik
- Application 10229-2009
- Hearing 13 April 2010
- Reasons 11 June 2010
The SDT made no order against the first respondent (admitted 1991), of BSB Solicitors, St James Chambers, 70 Hill Top, West Bromwich B70 0PU, save an order for costs. The SDT ordered that the second respondent (admitted 1999), of B K Solicitors, Crown House, 28 George Street, Birmingham B12 9RG, should pay a fine of £7,500; that the third respondent (admitted 2004), of the same address, should be reprimanded; and that the fourth respondent (admitted 2000), of the same address, should be reprimanded.
The first respondent had facilitated, permitted or acquiesced in the payment by BK Solicitors of a referral fee, contrary to section 2(3) of the Solicitors Introduction and Referral Code 1990; and he had failed to exercise adequate or appropriate supervision, contrary to rule 13 of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990 (SPR). The second respondent had breached the terms of rule 3 of the rules by accepting instructions and referrals of business from introducers in breach of the code, both in its original and amended forms; by virtue of the matters set out in [a Referral Arrangements Compliance Project Report dated 12 June 2007, which had been prepared following an inspection of BK Solicitors] he had acted contrary to rule 1(c), (d) and (e) of the rules, in that his conduct had compromised or impaired or had been likely to compromise or impair his duty act in the best interests of a client(s), and his good repute or that of the solicitors’ profession; contrary to rule 9 of the rules, in respect of personal injury claims, he had entered into an arrangement in association with persons (not being solicitors) whose business or a part of whose business was to make, support or prosecute (whether by action or otherwise) claims arising as a result of personal injury and who, in the course of such business, solicited or received contingency fees in respect of such claims; and contrary to rule 1(c), (d) and (e) of the rules, he had failed to give any or any adequate advice to clients as to the agreements clients had entered into with Accident and Injury Management Specialists and the merits of making payment pursuant to such agreement out of the clients’ damages.
The second, third and fourth respondents had withdrawn money from client account otherwise than as permitted by rule 22 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998. The SDT noted that, other than the matters before it, the first respondent had practised without blemish. He had had no active involvement in the failures in question, it being, rather, an issue of supervision. The SDT was satisfied that there was no need in the public interest for any further sanction against the first respondent and it therefore made no order save for a costs order. In relation to the third and fourth respondents the only allegation substantiated against them was a breach of the Solicitors Accounts Rules for which they were liable as a matter of strict liability. The there was no allegation of dishonesty against the second respondent: it was, rather, a case of error. The first respondent was ordered to pay costs of £1,000; the second respondent was ordered to pay costs of £7,500; and the third and fourth respondents were ordered to pay costs of £4,000, on the basis of joint and several liability.
