Shazia Anjum

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

Shazia Anjum, a sole practitioner solicitor, faced six allegations relating to improper transfers from the client account (Clients K, H, M), failure to return funds to Client R, attempting to circumvent an SRA intervention by arranging client payment into another account, failure to deliver up client files, holding herself out as a barrister, and inadequate accounting records/reconciliations. The Tribunal proceeded with the final two days in her absence after refusing an adjournment. It found dishonesty proved in relation to the improper client account transfers (allegation 1.1) and the attempt to arrange payment into an alternative account to circumvent the intervention (allegation 1.3(a)), finding she had fabricated an attendance sheet and invented a loan agreement. Allegations 1.3(b),(c) and the Principle 2 breach under 1.5 were not proved. Given the findings of dishonesty and no exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal struck her off the Roll and ordered costs of £51,954.40.

Duties found breached:

• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Act in the client's best interests
• Cooperate openly with regulators
• Integrity
• No improper use of client money
• No prejudicial publicity for pending cases
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Proper basis for allegations
• Segregate client money

Aggravating factors:

• Two allegations included dishonest conduct
• Misconduct was deliberate/planned and extended over several months
• Fabrication of an attendance sheet to justify use of Client K's funds
• Invention of a loan agreement to justify use of Client H's funds
• Fabrication of a second instruction to explain delay in refunding Client R
• Position of trust as regards client money; sole director, COLP and COFA
• Lack of meaningful insight into misconduct, heightening continuing risk to public
• High culpability
• Loss of restaurant lease/business opportunity for Client A due to delays

Mitigating factors:

• Previously unblemished disciplinary record
• Cooperated with the investigation and engaged with early stages of proceedings
• No client ultimately lost money
• Personal/health circumstances raised (pregnancy-related illness, mental health) though unsupported by medical evidence
• Bereavement in family shortly before final hearing days
• Some improper transfers made in part to give effect to client instructions; no intention for clients to lose out