Jamil Ahmud

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

The SRA brought allegations against solicitor Jamil Ahmud, including that he submitted a bill of costs with a higher hourly rate than charged to Client A (advanced as dishonest), submitted disproportionate bills, and failed to comply with a production notice. After belatedly contacting Client A, the SRA concluded Allegation 1 was no longer provable and the remaining allegations insufficiently serious, and applied to withdraw all allegations. The Tribunal granted withdrawal. On the Respondent's costs application, applying Flynn, the Tribunal found 'good reason' to depart from the default of no order against a regulator, holding the SRA had acted unreasonably through a series of grave errors: failing to obtain a witness statement from Client A before bringing dishonesty allegations, re-opening a closed investigation in breach of its Reconsideration Policy without informing the Respondent, omitting the prior investigation history from the Rule 5 Statement, continuing despite the client care letter, and delaying contact with Client A. The Tribunal ordered the SRA to pay the Respondent's costs (detailed assessment), with a £40,000 interim payment, and refused anonymity. No dishonesty or misconduct was found against the Respondent.