Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll.

While in practice as the sole director at Pilkingtons Solicitors, the respondent, having received payment for settled cases, had failed to pay outstanding professional and non-professional disbursements on at least 50 cases and had instead caused or allowed the money to be used for the running of the firm, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019.

When he had provided his business bank account reconciliation statement to the forensic investigation officer as part of her investigation, he had failed to notify the SRA of his firm’s serious financial difficulties, thereby failing to achieve paragraphs 7.7 and 7.8 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors 2019 and breaching principles 2 and 5.

The respondent had been motivated by his desire to keep the firm running. While he had not taken any money personally, he was the sole owner and beneficiary of the firm. His actions had been planned; the scheme had been devised to enable the firm to utilise monies that were due to third parties. He had direct responsibility and control over his misconduct. Having been informed of the scheme, he had sanctioned it and actively participated in its operation.

The respondent had been completely candid throughout the investigation. He had admitted the facts from the outset. His misconduct had occurred during extremely trying circumstances, many of which were beyond his control.

Those difficult circumstances did not amount to exceptional circumstances. In view of the serious nature of the misconduct, in that it involved dishonesty, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent’s name from the roll.

There was no order as to costs.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll.

While in practice as a solicitor at M&K Solicitors between June 2018 and June 2020, the respondent had misappropriated professional fees due on at least 41 immigration matters totalling £31,300 by receiving said fees personally when they should have been paid to the firm. In so doing, he had breached principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, so far as the conduct predated 25 November 2019, and principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019, so far as the conduct occurred on or after 25 November 2019.

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the respondent in accordance with a statement of agreed facts and outcome.

The respondent’s admissions had been properly made. He had admitted to the dishonest appropriation of client money on at least 41 occasions over a protracted period spanning two years. He had not advanced, and the SDT had not found on the papers, any suggestion of exceptional circumstances.

The only sanction which would sufficiently protect the overarching public interest, namely the protection of the public from harm, the declaration and upholding of proper standards within the profession and the maintenance of public confidence in the regulatory system, was an order striking the respondent from the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £6,350.

On 5 April, the Adjudication Panel resolved to intervene into the practice of Adiel Chowdhry, the practice of Tehmina Hussain Malik, and the firm, which was based at Unit 2.21 Barking Enterprise Estate, 50 Cambridge Road, Barking IG11 8FG. The first date of attendance was 11 April 2023.

The grounds of intervention into the practice of Chowdhry were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on Chowdhry’s part in connection with his practice as a solicitor (paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of Schedule 1 – Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974).
• Chowdhry had failed to comply with rules (paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 – Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974).

The grounds of intervention into the practice of Malik were:

• Malik had failed to comply with rules (paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 – Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974).

The grounds of intervention into the firm were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Chowdhry, as a manager of the firm in connection with the firm’s business (paragraph 32(1)(d)(i) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985).
• Chowdhry and Malik, as managers of the firm, and the firm itself, had failed to comply with the SRA Code of Conduct 2019 and the SRA Accounts Rules 2019, which are rules applicable to them both by virtue of Section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (paragraph 32(1)(a) of Schedule 2 of that act).

Chris Evans of Lester Aldridge LLP, Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth BH8 8EX; email: Intervention.
Enquiries@LA-Law.com; has been appointed to act as the Society’s agent.