• Application 11489-2016

• Admitted 2009

• Hearing 22 November 2016

• Reasons 12 January 2017

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

The respondent had abandoned his practice known as Your Right Solicitors Ltd on or about 24 November 2015, and in doing so had breached principles 2, 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011.

Between 1 January 2015 and 30 September 2015, he had made 39 round sum transfers from client account to office account totalling £58,900, without proper explanation or justification in breach of principles 2, 7, 8 and 10; and rules 17.2, 17.3, 17.7 and 20.1(a) of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011.

He had failed to have specific accounting records as required by the 2011 rules in that he had failed to produce or retain client ledgers for the period 2013/14 and 2014/15; failed to carry out client account reconciliation exercises and failed to produce or retain client account reconciliations statements; and failed to produce or retain a central record of bills in breach of rules 29.2, 29.4, 29.9, 29.13, 29.15, 29.17 and 31.1 of the 2011 rules and principle 7.

He had retained office money in client account in breach of rules 14.2, 17.9, 20.3 and 20.5 of the 2011 rules.

He had failed to remedy his breaches of the 2011 rules promptly upon discovery in breach of rule 7.1 thereof.

He had made improper payments from the firm’s client account number 27****60 to his personal bank account with Sonali Bank Ltd in Dhaka, Bangladesh in the sum of £20,000 on 19 November 2015, contrary to principles 1, 2, 6 and 10 and rule 20.1 of the 2011 rules, and in so doing had acted dishonestly.

He had provided misleading information to the SRA when informing the investigation officer that he had left his client invoices and ledgers for the year 2014/15 with his former secretary Ms B and stating he had been unable to make contact with her, neither of which was correct or true, contrary to principles 2, 6 and 7, and had failed to achieve outcome 10.6 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

He had advised Ms B to ignore the SRA’s request to make contact with it, contrary to principles 2, 6 and 7, and had failed to achieve outcome 10.6 and 10.7 of the 2011 code.

The respondent’s conduct was utterly disgraceful. There were no exceptional circumstances in the case. He was clearly a risk to the public who needed to be protected from him.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £14,500.