Feisal Mohammed Raza Sheikh; Maxim Solicitors Limited

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

Consultant solicitor Feisal Sheikh and his firm Maxim Solicitors Limited faced allegations arising from a forensic investigation. The First Respondent admitted allowing the firm's client account to be used as a banking facility and failing to return client money promptly (in breach of Rule 3.3 of the 2019 Accounts Rules and Principle 2), particularly regarding payments made through the client account for a personal car sale between the solicitor and a client, Person A, during Covid-19. The Firm admitted the same banking facility allegation and a further allegation of failing to have documented client and matter risk assessments in place for five files (breach of MLRs 2017). Several other allegations and aspects were withdrawn. The Tribunal, dealing with the matter by agreed outcome, assessed culpability as low with no actual harm but potential risk. It fined each Respondent £5,000 (level 1 fine band) and ordered costs of £2,500 (First Respondent) and £3,000 (Second Respondent). No dishonesty or lack of integrity was found or alleged.

Duties found breached:

• Act in the client's best interests
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues
• Not misrepresent regulated status

Aggravating factors:

• First Respondent, as an experienced solicitor of 24 years, should have known his conduct was a material breach of obligation
• Blatant/fundamental breach of basic aspects of the Accounts Rules and SRA guidance
• First Respondent gave in to client requests for favours despite appreciating the transactions were impermissible, and the client's explanations were inadequate

Mitigating factors:

• Full cooperation with the SRA throughout the investigation and proceedings
• Admissions made, avoiding a contested hearing
• No previous regulatory findings / unblemished record
• No dishonesty or lack of integrity found or alleged
• No actual harm caused; firm assessed as low-risk in money laundering terms
• Conduct limited in time and brief duration
• Second Respondent rectified the risk assessment failing by introducing new inception forms in January 2020
• Conduct occurred during Covid-19 lockdown (First Respondent)

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["unverified_fine_amount=10000", "unverified_costs_amount=5500"]