Shazia Anjum

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

SDT case 12097-2020, SRA v Shazia Anjum (admitted 2010, sole director/COLP/COFA of Premium Law Solicitors Limited). The SRA alleged six allegations including improper transfers from client account into accounts used personally by the Respondent causing shortages (Clients K, H, M), failure to return Client R's funds, attempting to arrange improper payment from Client A contrary to intervention terms, failure to deliver up files, holding out as a barrister, and accounting failures. Dishonesty was alleged in respect of allegations 1.1 and 1.3. The hearing proceeded partly in the Respondent's absence after the Tribunal refused her late adjournment application and decided to continue under R v Jones/Adeogba principles. NOTE: The supplied text is truncated and does not contain the Tribunal's actual findings, whether dishonesty was proven, the sanction, or costs. Dishonesty was only alleged here, not shown as expressly found in the available text.

Duties found breached:

• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Advise on alternatives, settlement and outcome
• Handle inadvertently received material
• No improper use of client money
• Not misrepresent regulated status