Sajit Maboob Abbas and Alan Douglas Cockburn
- Application 10110-2008
- Hearing 30 November 2009
- Reasons 9 July 2010
The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 2000), of Megsons LLP, 7-9 Church Lane, Oldham, Lancashire OL1 3AN, and that the second respondent (admitted 1983), of the same address, should each pay a fine of £7,500.
The SDT further ordered that if the respondents did not effect compliance with the undertakings dated 12 May 2008 and 1 July 2008 by 31 March 2010, they would each be suspended indefinitely from 1 April 2010. The respondents were to supply evidence of such compliance to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The respondents had (i) rewarded introducers for referrals before it was permitted by the Solicitors Introduction and Referral Code 1990; (ii) they had entered into an arrangement for the introduction of clients with a person who in the course of business solicited or received a contingency fee, contrary to rule 9 of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990 up to 30 June 2007 and rule 9.01(4) of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007 from 1 July 2007; (iii) they had conducted matters where it was likely that their integrity and independence and ability to act in the best interests of their client would be compromised or impaired, contrary to rule 1(a) and (c) of the rules up to 30 June 2007 and contrary to rule 1.01(2), (3) and (4) of the 2007 code from 1 July 2007; (iv) they had acted in matters where there was a potential conflict of interests between the client and the solicitor; (v) they had failed to draw potential introducers’ attention to the provisions of the Solicitors Publicity Code, contrary to section 2(2) of the 1990 code up to 30 June 2007 and contrary to rule 9.01(2) of the 2007 code from 1 July 2007; (vi) they had failed to ensure that the introducer provided all relevant information and to ensure that clients had been acquired in the proper manner, contrary to section 2(4) of the 1990 code up to 30 June 2007 and contrary to rule 9.02(c) and (e) of the 2007 code from 1 July 2007; (vii) they had failed to provide clients with all relevant information concerning a referral, contrary to section 2(3) of the 1990 code up to 30 June 2007 and contrary to rule 9.02(g) of the 2007 code from 1 July 2007; (viii) they had failed to ensure that their agreement with an introducer was set out in writing and had failed to keep records of reviews of referral agreement, contrary to section 3A(4) of the 1990 code up to 30 June 2007 and rule 9.02(a) of the 2007 code from 1 July 2007; (ix) they had failed to ensure that an introducer had provided in writing to their customer notification of the referral arrangement, conveyancing services to be provided and charges, contrary to section 3A(8) of the 1990 code up to 30 June 2007 and rule 9.02(e) of the 2007 code from 1 July 2007; (x) they had failed to comply with undertakings, contrary to rule 10.05 of the 2007 code; (xi) they had failed to act with integrity, contrary to rule 1.02 of the 2007 Code; and (xii) they had behaved in a way which was likely to diminish public trust in the profession, contrary to rule 1.06 of the 2007 code. The SDT viewed the breach of undertaking, and in particular that undertakings two and three had still not been complied with, as a very serious matter going to public trust in the profession. At the time that the third undertaking had been given, the respondents had already been in breach of one undertaking and so should have known that it was extremely risky to give a further undertaking. That had demonstrated an extreme degree of naivety. Allegations (i)-(ix) in respect of each of the respondents related to four referral agreements. The SDT accepted that the respondents’ procedures were now all compliant in that regard. The SDT would therefore impose a fine of £2,500 on each respondent in respect of those allegations. Allegations (x)-(xii) involved the breach of three separate undertakings.
A solicitor’s undertaking was something which the public and the profession had to be able to rely upon completely. Whilst one of the undertakings had now been complied with, albeit very belatedly and in circumstances where there seemed to have been no reason not to have complied with it promptly, the other two were still outstanding. That was a most serious matter and wholly unacceptable to the profession. Such conduct was damaging to the public’s trust and confidence in the profession and would not be tolerated. Each day that the undertakings remained outstanding was a continuing breach and that could not be permitted.
A fine of £5,000 would be imposed on each of the respondents and a further condition that if the respondents did not effect compliance with the undertakings by 31 March 2010, they would be suspended indefinitely from 1 April 2010. The respondents were ordered to pay costs of £21,000, on the basis of joint and several liability.
