Md Zahidul Islam; Zarina Shaheen Bostan; Nageena Choudhry; Mohammed Saleem

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

Four solicitors faced allegations arising from the January 2020 sale of Silverman Peake LLP and a related Trainee-Principal Agreement. The Tribunal found the First Respondent (buyer/sole member) and Second Respondent (unadmitted trainee who funded the purchase and ran the office) breached SRA Principles 2 and 5, the Code for Firms and the Accounts Rules; the Second Respondent additionally breached Principle 7 and the Code for Solicitors by accepting a Part 36 offer for a former client without authority and in conflict. No dishonesty was found (lack of integrity only). Each was fined £10,001; the Second Respondent also received a Restriction Order with leave to apply after 3 years. Allegations against the Third and Fourth Respondents (former owners) were dismissed, the Tribunal accepting their evidence that they had not read the TPA and were unaware of key matters. Costs ordered: £14,482.46 (First) and £26,895.99 (Second), no order against the Third and Fourth.

Duties found breached:

• Uphold public trust in the profession
• No conflict between current clients
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Firm governance, systems and compliance

Aggravating factors:

• Second Respondent showed no genuine remorse and a lack of insight, deflecting responsibility onto others
• Second Respondent acted without client authority and continued to justify it
• Second Respondent's late disclosure on the third day of the hearing and equivocal responses to allegations
• Significant risk of harm arising from delegation of control and accounts failures

Mitigating factors:

• No previous disciplinary findings against any Respondent
• First Respondent made early/prompt admissions, gave frank evidence, showed insight and remorse
• First Respondent's relative inexperience and naivety, having relied on advice of others (Mr A, a struck-off solicitor) and assurances
• No actual harm arose from the misconduct
• COVID-19 disruption and lack of effective handover cited

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["unverified_fine_amount=20002", "unverified_costs_amount=41378.45"]