Subramanian Ezhumavil and Sajjad Hussain Kayani

• Application 10302-209
• Hearing 2 March 2010
• Reasons 17 May 2010~

The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 2005), and that the second respondent (admitted 2006), should each be reprimanded. At the material time the respondents had practised in partnership under the name of Theva Solicitors, 128 Ilford Lane, Ilford, Essex IG1 2LA.

The firm’s client account was described on bank records as an ‘office account’, in breach of rule 14(3) of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998; the firm had prepared incomplete bank reconciliations, in breach of rule 32(7) of the rules; and the firm had failed to maintain client ledgers correctly and/or in accordance with rule 32 of the rules. While the SDT’s comments related largely to the second respondent, they also applied to the first respondent. The SDT accepted that the second respondent was an eminently decent solicitor who had demonstrated how seriously he had taken the allegations. He had worked hard to put his accounts in order. He had been cooperative and had immediately recognised his shortcomings. For the second respondent to have come out of the Assigned Risks Pool was commendable. The reality of life a sole practitioner could not be underestimated.

Each respondent was ordered to pay costs of £3,000.