Harjit Dlay

• Application 10855-2011
• Admitted 2003
• Hearing 9 December 2011
• Reasons 6 January 2012

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £15,000.

Contrary to rules 1.02, 1.04, 1.05 and 1.06 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007, the respondent had failed to disclose material information to clients; contrary to rules 1.02, 1.04, 1.05 and 1.06 of the code, she had failed to act in the best interests of her clients; contrary to rule 3.01(1) and (2)(a) of the code, she had acted in transactions where there was a conflict or a significant risk of conflict between the interests of two or more clients; contrary to rules 9.01(1) and 9.02(b) of the code, she had failed to obtain the required undertaking from an introducer, Innovative Tax Solutions Ltd; and contrary to rule 32(1) and (2) of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998, she had failed to keep accounting records properly written up.

The SDT agreed that the first three allegations were serious, while acknowledging that no dishonesty had been alleged. The respondent had failed to ­disclose material information to the purchaser and lender clients in over approximately 90 conveyancing transactions. The revenue generated by the transactions under that scheme had been in the region of £195,000.

The SDT had considered the full range of sanctions available to it and had taken the view that a fine dealing with all allegations was the appropriate sanction, since all of the allegations had arisen from the same set of circumstances. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £30,000.