A law firm director who failed to ensure his firm complied with a court order and later failed to co-operate with the regulator has been suspended for six months by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
Talha Jamil Ahmad, while in practice as sole director and manager of A&T Legal Ltd, trading as Leaside Law, was also found to have failed to comply and/or ensure that the firm complied with decisions made by the Solicitors Regulation Authority which directed him and/or the firm pay fines for regulatory breaches.
The SDT judgment said Ahmad was the sole manager of the firm, which ‘had acted, or purported to act, for an incorporated charity client in a litigation matter, and initially filed an application for an injunction, on an ex-parte basis’. The injunction was overturned and the firm ceased acting for the claimants before the claim was dismissed by the county court. The other side was awarded costs either ‘from those purporting to be the claimants’ or from the firm.
The firm failed to comply with an order to serve and file a witness statement stating the identity of the claimants from whom it took instructions and did not respond to an application for wasted costs by the opposing party. As a result, the county court ordered the firm pay £29,704 costs, or make an application to vary or set aside the order within fourteen days of receipt of the order.
The opposing party reported the firm to the SRA claiming it had failed to comply with the costs order or apply to set it aside.
Read more
Ahmad, admitted in November 2014, did not participate in the SDT proceedings and the hearing proceeded in his absence, the judgment said. The tribunal found all three allegations against Ahmad proved.
Referring to the first allegation of failing to comply with a court order, the tribunal said Ahmad ‘in making no apparent attempt to comply with the court order…had failed to maintain the trust that the public had in him as a solicitor and in the legal profession as a whole’.
It added: ‘Over a period exceeding two years, the respondent in his capacity as a solicitor and sole owner and manager of the firm, failed to cooperate with the SRA. He did not respond to correspondence, repeatedly requested extensions and then failed to comply, and ultimately did not provide the information, explanations, and documents requested of him.’
Suspending Ahmad for six months, the SDT said his conduct was ‘so serious that neither a reprimand or a fine would address the misconduct’.
It added: ‘To protect the public and the reputation of the legal profession, the respondent should be suspended from practice.’
Ahmad was also ordered to pay £24,735 costs. After the end of his six-month suspension, Ahmad will be subject to conditions, imposed indefinitely, which mean he cannot practise in certain roles including as a sole practitioner or partner.
