Decisions

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £2,500. 

While in practice as a solicitor at HKH Kenwright & Cox Solicitors, he had provided banking facilities through a client account, in that he had allowed payments into, and transfers and withdrawals from, a client account that were not in respect of instructions relating to an underlying transaction or to a service forming part of his normal regulated activities, thereby breaching section 14.5 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 2011, and principle 8 of the SRA Principles 2011.

The SDT had examined 38 transactions referred to by the applicant and had found that only two of those transactions did not relate to an underlying legal transaction, and as such were in breach of rule 14.5 and principle 8.

The matter related to the respondent’s conduct in relation to the purchase and development of a large property in Scotland, and sums transferred into and out of client account.

The respondent’s motivation had been to keep his client happy. The breaches of rule 14.5 were not planned but the respondent was very experienced.

No harm had been caused to any individual by the breach. There is always a degree of harm caused to the reputation of the profession when a solicitor breached the accounts rules, but in the present instance it was not dramatic.

The respondent’s misconduct was aggravated by the fact that it had occurred on more than one occasion, but it was mitigated by the fact that it had been in the context of one matter and in that sense had been of brief duration.

The seriousness of the misconduct was such that the appropriate sanction was a fine of £2,500.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £10,000.

The SDT refused the application of the applicant for restoration to the roll of solicitors.

The applicant had been struck off the roll in January 2001. While there had been no findings of dishonesty recorded against the applicant, that did not vitiate the seriousness of the misconduct found, which was predicated on his having breached fundamental tenets of the profession, namely: (i) inadequate maintenance of accounting records; (ii) improper withdrawals from the client account; (iii) lack of cooperation with his regulator; and (iv) misleading his regulator, and production of misleading accounts.

If a solicitor was not shown to have acted dishonestly but had been shown to have fallen below the required standards of integrity, probity and trustworthiness, his lapse was less serious than if dishonesty had been involved, but it remained very serious indeed in a member of the profession whose reputation depended on trust.  

The crux of the applicant’s original misconduct and the mischief that it addressed was the applicant’s ethical and moral compass which had been found lacking in 2001. His work experience after strike-off did not allay the SDT’s concerns in that regard.

Accordingly, given all the attendant circumstances and findings the SDT refused the applicant’s application for restoration to the roll.

The applicant was ordered to pay costs of £2,067.

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

The respondent had committed up to seven offences of aiding and abetting tax evasion in Germany and one offence of attempted tax evasion by acquiescence in Germany. In doing so, he had breached rules 1.02 and 1.06 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2007. He had acted dishonestly.

He had failed to respond adequately or at all to the SRA’s requests for information (including a notice issued pursuant to section 44B of the Solicitors Act 1974), thereby breaching principle 7 of the SRA Principles 2011 and failing to achieve outcomes 10.6 and 10.8 under the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

The respondent admitted the allegations.

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the respondent in accordance with the statement of agreed facts and outcome. The proposed sanction was that the respondent should be struck off the roll.

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.

The respondent had been convicted of serious offences involving dishonesty which struck at the heart of what the public would expect of a solicitor, namely that they ‘may be trusted to the ends of the earth’ (Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512). He had also admitted that his conduct described in the first allegation was dishonest.

The protection of the public and public confidence in the profession and the reputation of the profession required no lesser sanction than that the respondent be removed from the roll. The proposed sanction of striking the respondent from the roll was appropriate, proportionate and in accordance with the Sanctions Guidance.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £1,000.

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

While in practice as a salaried partner at Spence and Horne, the respondent had improperly received £825,181.75 from the estate of client A into his personal bank account, thereby breaching principles 2, 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011, and rules 13.1, 13.3 and 14.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011. He had acted dishonestly.

He had failed to pay bequests to beneficiaries named in client A’s will, and had misappropriated or otherwise misused estate assets for his own benefit, thereby breaching principles 2, 4, 6 and 10, and failing to achieve outcome 11.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct. He had acted dishonestly.

He had improperly received monies totalling £115,785.46 into his personal bank accounts for at least 25 client matters when this money should have been paid into the firm’s office or client bank accounts, thereby breaching principles 2, 6 and 10, and rules 13.1, 13.3, 14.1 and 17.1 of the 2011 rules. He had acted dishonestly.

He had failed to account to the firm for profit costs and VAT totalling £18,514.99 so that the firm could settle the VAT element of bills that he had issued to clients, in breach of principles 2 and 6. He had acted dishonestly.

The respondent had caused significant and irreparable harm to the beneficiaries by significantly decreasing the value of client A’s estate.

His conduct was aggravated by his proven dishonesty. There were no mitigating features of the respondent’s conduct.

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 off the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £25,102.

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

While in practice as a solicitor at BTMK Solicitors Limited, the respondent had misappropriated monies belonging either to BTMK or their clients. Insofar as the conduct had taken place during the period from February 2003 but before 6 October 2011, he had acted in breach of rules 1.02, 1.04 and 1.06 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007, and rule 22 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998; and insofar as the conduct had taken place during the period from 6 October 2011 to April 2019, he had acted in breach of principles 2, 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011, and rules 1.2 and 20.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011. His conduct was dishonest.

While in practice as a solicitor at Palmers Solicitors the respondent had misappropriated monies belonging either to Palmers or their clients. Insofar as the conduct had taken place during the period from May 2019 but before 25 November 2019, he had acted in breach of principles 2, 6 and 10 of the 2011 Principles, and rules 1.2 and 20.1 of the 2011 Accounts Rules, and insofar as the conduct had taken place on or after 25 November 2019, he had acted in breach of principles 2, 4 and 5 of the 2019 Principles, and rule 5.1 of the 2019 Accounts Rules. His conduct was dishonest.

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 SDT was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s admissions had been properly made.

The admitted misconduct had involved dishonestly misappropriating client and/or employer funds which struck at the heart of what the public would expect of a solicitor, namely that they ‘may be trusted to the ends of the earth’.

There were no exceptional circumstances present such that a lesser sanction than strike-off was warranted and none was advanced by the parties.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £1,500.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £7,501.

The respondent had caused or allowed a defence to be filed with the Central London County Court, which he ought to have known was factually incorrect and misleading, in that it stated that the lay client had liability for the sums claimed when that was not the case, thereby breaching principles 1 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

Having been notified that the defence was factually incorrect and misleading, he had failed to notify the court of the same and/or otherwise failed to apply to withdraw or amend the defence, thereby breaching principles 1 and 6, and failing to achieve outcome 5.6 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

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

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.

The admitted conduct was serious misconduct. It undermined trust in the profession. In mitigation, there was no allegation that the respondent had acted with a lack of integrity or dishonestly, and he had made full admissions.

The parties proposed a fine in the sum of £7,501. The SDT, having determined that the proposed sanction was appropriate and proportionate, granted the application for matters to be resolved by way of the agreed outcome.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £10,000.

On 27 July 2022, the panel resolved to intervene into the above-named licensed body, formerly based at 42 Lampton Road, Hounslow, Middlesex TW3 1JN, and into the former practice of Liaqat Ali at B K Solicitors Ltd. Zahid Roshan was a former non-lawyer manager at the firm.

The grounds of intervention into Ali’s former practice at B K Solicitors Ltd were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Ali in connection with his former practice at B K Solicitors Ltd (paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended)).

The grounds of intervention into B K Solicitors Ltd were:

• B K Solicitors Ltd and its managers, Ali and Roshan, had not complied with the terms of B K Solicitors Ltd’s licence (paragraph 1(2)(a) of schedule 14 to the Legal Services Act 2007).

No intervention agent has been appointed. The SRA will be making the necessary arrangements to take possession of the practice monies and documents.

Ali’s current practising certificate has been suspended as a result of the intervention.