Kamar Abbas Khan

  • Application 11552-2016
  • Admitted 2009
  • Hearing 16 March 2017
  • Reasons 24 March 2017

 Upon the respondent providing to the SDT a copy of a signed written undertaking to the applicant by the respondent to apply within 14 days for voluntary removal from the roll pursuant to section 8(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974; and, for a period of five years from the date of that removal from the roll, not to seek restoration to the roll under section 8(2) of the 1974 act, the SDT ordered that:

(i) the proceedings brought by the applicant against the respondent should be stayed; and

(ii) he should be subject to section 41 of the Solicitors Act 1974 and should not seek or accept employment or remuneration in connection with the provision of legal services by a solicitor, partner or member of a limited partnership, recognised body, legal disciplinary practice, alternative business structure or any other entity regulated by the applicant or any other approved regulator under the Legal Services Act 2007, without first obtaining written permission from the applicant and disclosing a copy of the statement of agreed facts and outcome to the prospective employer.

While in practice as the director of Taylor Knight and Wolff Limited the respondent had:

  • Between November 2014 and September 2015, breached rules 20, 29.1 and 29.2 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 and principles 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011;
  • Between October 2014 and November 2015, breached rules 7.1 and 20 of the 2011 Rules and principles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10;
  • Between 2 April 2015 and 29 September 2015 breached rule 8.5 of the SRA Authorisation Rules 2011 and principle 7;
  • In September 2015 and thereafter breached rule 31 of the 2011 rules and principle 7;
  • Between 2014 and 2015 breached regulations 7 and 19 of the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 and principle 7.

The application encompassed 36 client matters and included debit balances totalling over £43,500. There had been serious failings in accounting at the firm. As to the respondent’s culpability, although he was not the firm’s COFA he had overall responsibility as director of the firm.

The agreed outcome included removal from the roll for a period of five years, which the SDT considered to be equivalent to the term of suspension that it would have imposed in the absence of the agreement.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £24,500.