Mohsin Patel

• Application 10239-2009
• Admitted 2002
• Hearing 8 December 2009
• Reasons 14 May 2010

The SDT ordered that the respondent, of Equitas Solicitors Ltd, Ground Floor, Muirfield Buildings, Fairways Office Park, Olivers Place, Preston, Lancashire PR2 9WT, should pay a fine of £750.

Contrary to rule 9 of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990 the respondent, in respect of personal injury claims, had entered into an arrangement or acted in association with persons (not being solicitors) whose business or a part of his 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) of the rules, he had failed to act in the clients’ best interests, in that he had failed adequately, or at all, to advise clients of the fee payable to the referral companies, and which was deducted from the clients’ damages, and/or by entering into a referral arrangement which had allowed for a contingency fee to be charged.

The SDT found that any breach of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990 was serious and could not be regarded as trivial. By making unlawful deductions from clients’ damages, the respondent had caused clients to suffer and had brought the profession into disrepute. However, the SDT gave credit to the respondent for rectifying the position immediately on becoming aware of the breaches and noted that he had cooperated fully with the Solicitors Regulation Authority throughout. The SDT also noted from his client care letters that in fact he had informed clients at the outset that the deduction they had agreed with Claims Management Companies was not in their best interests and he had asked them to sign an authority form confirming whether they were happy for those deductions to be made. It appeared that he had tried to act in his clients’ best interests, although he now accepted that he had not done so. The SDT was impressed with the very good character reference provided, and in all the circumstances considered the appropriate sanction was to fine the respondent.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £8,000.