§ discipline
‹ Browse decisions

Ziad Al-Rawi

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number11168/2013
Date01/01/2013
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Client Money, Failures, Others

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 11,000
Dishonesty foundYes

Solicitor at Ashton Page Solicitors made eight improper withdrawals totalling £96,000 from client account to office account between January and June 2012, using funds for personal/business purposes including paying off a loan shark for a colleague (£33,000) and an internet marketing course. He failed to remedy the shortage promptly (repaying only shortly before intervention in January 2013) and failed to conduct required reconciliations. The Tribunal found dishonesty proved on the Twinsectra test, rejecting the argument that his conduct was irrational due to stress. The allegation of operating as a sole practitioner was not proved. The Respondent was struck off and ordered to pay £11,000 costs, not to be enforced without Tribunal permission given his likely bankruptcy.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Client money used for personal purposes including repaying a loan shark for a colleague and an internet marketing course
  • Improper transfers repeated over a period of five to eight months
  • Client account shortage of £104,118.03 existed for a considerable period
  • Initially put off inspection and did not immediately admit improper withdrawals
  • Concealed breaches because he did not want anyone to know until rectified

Mitigating factors:

  • All funds repaid before intervention; no clients adversely affected
  • Sincere apology and admission of accounts allegations
  • No previous disciplinary findings
  • Personal and financial pressures including son's illness and financial difficulties (medical report from Dr Wilkins)
  • Positive testimonials including from current employer

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/11168/