Ijaz Ahmad and Aamer Masood

• Application 10685-2010
• Hearing 27, 28 July 2011
• Reasons 13 September 2011

The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 2001), of Ilford, Essex IG5, should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for two years to commence on 28 July 2011; and that the second respondent (admitted 2005), of Grays, Essex RM16, should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for six months to commence on 28 July 2011.

The respondents had made improper withdrawals from client account resulting in a cash shortage as at 31 January 2010 of not less than £229,689.54 in client account, in breach of rules 6 and 22 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998; they had used a suspense client ledger account in circumstances where it was not justified and/or for the purposes of making improper withdrawals, in breach of rules 6, 22 and 32(16) of the rules; the computerised and handwritten ledger accounts maintained by the respondents had failed to reflect in all cases the true balance, in breach of rules 6, 32(1), (2) and (5) of the rules; between about 1 April 2009 and 16 March 2010 they had failed to carry out five-weekly client account reconciliations, in breach of rules 6 and 32(7) of the rules; in breach of rule 7 of the rules, they had failed to remedy the breaches of the rules described above promptly on discovery or at all; they had failed to disclose material information to lender clients in a number of conveyancing transactions, in breach of rule 1 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007; they had failed, on behalf of lender clients in a number of conveyancing transactions, to adhere to the requirements of parts 1 and 2 of the Council of Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook, in breach of rule 1 of the code; they had failed, on behalf of lender clients in a number of conveyancing transactions, to register transfers and/or mortgages, in breach of rule 1 of the code; they had been in breach of rule 1 of the code in that they had failed to act in the best interests of their lender clients, had failed to provide a good standard of service to those lender clients and, in respect of all the matters which were the subject of allegations the allegations above, had failed to act with integrity and behaved in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in the respondents or the legal profession; they had further acted in breach of rules 6 and 22 of the rules by recklessly making improper withdrawals from client account, namely: £186,790.66 which had been received by them on 5 March 2010 and which should have been applied to redeem their client Ms S’s mortgage with the RBS had instead (save as to £76.51) between 5 March 2010 and 30 April 2010 been withdrawn for other purposes, and £204,402.47 which had been received by them on 31 March 2010 and which should have been applied to redeem their clients Mr and Mr H’s mortgage with HSBC had instead (save as to £76.51) between 31 March 2010 and 30 April 2010 been withdrawn for other purposes; they had acted in breach of rules 1.04, 1.05 and 1.06 of the code in that they had failed to act in the best interests of their clients, had failed to provide a good service to such clients and had behaved in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in them or the legal profession by: failing to redeem Ms S’s mortgage with the RBS, and failing to redeem Mr and Mrs H’s mortgage with HSBC; and they had acted in breach of rule 1.06 of the code in that their failure to redeem Ms S’s and Mr and Mrs H’s respective mortgages had diminished the trust the public placed in them or the legal profession by causing there to be unreasonable delays in the registration of Mr and Mrs P’s interest in the property they had purchased from Ms S, causing there to be unreasonable delays in the registration of Mrs A’s interest in the property she had purchased from Mr and Mrs H.

The SDT found that the first respondent had been working in approved employment with the permission of the Solicitors Regulation Authority since May 2011 doing conveyancing work among other duties, even though rather surprisingly the SDT had been told that he was prepared to give an undertaking not to work in that area of law in future.

The second respondent was currently unemployed but had applied for his practising certificate to be renewed and had been offered employment as a solicitor in family and immigration law. The underlying facts contained serious allegations pertaining to the ability, or rather the lack of ability, of the respondents to manage and to have proper stewardship for the practice they were running between 2006 and 2010.

The SDT took into account the first respondent’s previous appearance before it and in particular the reasons for that appearance, in relation to the allegations that were admitted and those that were not admitted but found proven. The SDT also took account of the fact that the first respondent was the partner and fee-earner with overall responsibility for the two transactions that ultimately resulted in the losses sustained by RBS and HSBC due to the failure to redeem the mortgages. Based on applications by the clients and/or the purchasers of those properties, grants were made by the Solicitors Compensation Fund (SCF), and it was possible that at a point in the future professional indemnity insurers, namely the assigned risks pool, might well reimburse the SCF.

The first respondent was also the prime contact with the book-keeper H of K Associates, and he was effectively the more senior of the partners. The SDT was told that the second respondent had only been admitted for about six months before he became a partner in the practice with the first respondent. The first respondent was the person who had prime contact with the accountants and had overall responsibility for managing the accounts function. The SDT had therefore concluded that there should be a distinction between the respondents.

The SDT had given serious consideration to striking the first respondent in particular off the roll. The mere fact that he had not been found to be dishonest did not protect him from that sanction. He had appeared before the SDT on a previous relatively recent occasion and seemed to have learned nothing from that experience. The SDT had been dismayed by his apparent lack of understanding during the course of giving evidence of even the basic layout of a bank statement. The allegations against both respondents were certainly sufficiently serious to merit a more onerous penalty than a fine to ensure proper protection for the public and to protect and maintain the public’s confidence in the reputation of the profession.

However the SDT had concluded that the fair and proportionate sanction to impose on both respondents was one of suspension for differing finite periods. That would allow the respondents time to take stock of their conduct and to take whatever steps were necessary in order to ensure that the same mistakes were not repeated, including retraining as required.

The respondents were ordered to pay costs of £18,000 on the basis of joint and several liability.