Decisions and interventions

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll. 

While in practice as a solicitor at Property Legal (Manchester) Limited, Wright & Lord Solicitors Limited and Muve (trading name Connect 2 Law), between 29 June and 16 July 2021, the respondent had misled two firms where she worked as a locum by submitting timesheets and claiming payment for the same hours on the same dates from both firms, while she was also employed to work full-time by a third law firm. She had thereby breached paragraphs 1.2 and 1.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs, and principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019.

She had misled her employer Muve that she was working for them full-time, and solely for them, while working at two other roles for PLS and W&L during her period of employment, thereby breaching paragraph 1.4 of the Code for Solicitors and principle 5. 

The respondent was motivated by financial gain. The period when she was undertaking simultaneous employment was an extremely busy period for the conveyancing industry following the lifting of restrictions implemented during the Covid pandemic, and the respondent was capitalising on that. 

The firms at which the respondent had worked had expressed dissatisfaction with her output and performance. The reputation of the profession had been damaged by her actions and the level of harm was high.

The respondent had placed blame on others for her actions, including the recruitment consultants and the firms at which she was employed. She had demonstrated limited insight regarding her conduct. 

Given the finding of dishonesty against the respondent, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike her name from the roll. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £8,891.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £14,168. 

While in practice as a partner at DWF Law LLP, between October 2019 and November 2020, the respondent had failed to check that the conditions of the relevant contract had been met and that monies were properly due to the client before authorising payments from the firm’s client account, thereby acting in breach of principles 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011; rule 20.1(a) of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011; principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019; paragraph 4.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs; rule 5.1(a) of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019; and rule 5.2 of the SRA Accounts Rules. 

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the respondent in accordance with a statement of agreed facts and outcome annexed to the judgment. The SDT had reviewed all the material before it and was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s admissions had been properly made. 

As a partner of the firm, the respondent had ultimate responsibility for final sign-off on the payment authorisations and, given the very large sums of money involved, the respondent should have exercised greater care and scrutiny before authorising their release. However, it was to his credit that he had self-reported the matter and made appropriate admissions. 

In all the circumstances, the SDT accepted that the proposed sanction was reasonable and proportionate to mark the seriousness of the misconduct, protect the public and maintain the reputation of the profession. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £19,000.

On 11 July 2025 the Solicitors Regulation Authority intervened into the practice of Mohammad Saeed Zafar and Raghwinder Singh Siddhu, and the recognised body of SZ Solicitors Ltd, of 502 Great West Road, Hounslow TW5 0TE.

The grounds for intervention for the individuals were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Zafar and Siddhu in connection with their practices at the firm (paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended)).
• Zafar and Siddhu have failed to comply with the SRA Principles, the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms, the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs, the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 and the SRA Accounts Rules 2019, which are rules made under sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) (paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 to the act).

The grounds for intervention for the firm were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Zafar and Siddhu as managers of the firm in connection with the firm’s business (paragraph 32(1)(d) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended));
• Zafar and Siddhu, as managers of the firm, and the firm itself, have failed to comply with the SRA Principles, the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms, the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs, the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 and the SRA Accounts Rules 2019, which are rules applicable to them as managers of the firm by virtue of section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended) (paragraph 32(1)(a) of Schedule 2 to that act).

Zafar’s and Siddhu’s practising certificates were suspended by reason of the intervention.

Claire Burrows of Shakespeare Martineau, SHMA SRA Interventions, PO Box 18228, Birmingham B2 2HX (tel: 0300 247 2470; email: interventions@shma.co.uk) has been appointed as intervention agent.