R M A Khan & Another

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

The First Respondent, Rana Mahmood Alam Khan, a sole signatory solicitor practising at R Khan and Partners, was found to have committed serious breaches of the Solicitors Accounts Rules including a minimum client account shortage of £69,926.84, failures to comply with undertakings, sending a dishonoured client account cheque, failing to discharge a mortgage on a property he sold to a client (who was subsequently evicted), retaining completion funds, and failing to cooperate with the SRA. Although dishonesty was alleged in relation to allegation 1, the Tribunal found the dishonesty allegation was not proved to the requisite standard because the basis was not set out in the Rule 5 Statement and the First Respondent was not cross-examined on it. He was struck off the Roll and ordered to pay costs of £23,781.67 (not enforceable without leave). The Second Respondent, a registered foreign lawyer held out as a partner, was found liable for SAR breaches as a partner (but no lack of integrity found), was suspended for 6 months and ordered to pay costs of £4,196.76.

Duties found breached:

• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Diligence and timeliness
• Disclose referrals, commissions and benefits
• Honour professional undertakings
• No improper communication with the court
• No improper use of client money
• No taking unfair advantage
• Not misrepresent regulated status
• Report serious misconduct of others
• Safeguard documents and limit liens

Aggravating factors:

• Minimum cash shortage on client account of £69,926.84 with no proper explanation
• Firm unable to make required completion payment of £245,000, depriving clients of funds
• Caused client Mr Akhtar to lose his property through repossession by failing to discharge legal charge
• Failure to comply with multiple undertakings
• Showed little understanding, sympathy or regard for position he placed Mr Akhtar in
• First Respondent's evidence found contradictory, less than frank and at times disbelieved by Tribunal
• Closed firm during ongoing investigation

Mitigating factors:

• No previous disciplinary matters
• First Respondent's ill health and stress during period leading up to intervention
• Firm's financial difficulties when conveyancing work dried up and firm removed from lender panels
• First Respondent eventually admitted several allegations
• First Respondent borrowed money from his brother to repay clients Ms N and Mr N
• For Second Respondent: no control or involvement in firm's accounting records, conducted only immigration work, unaware of shortfall

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["review_dishonesty_finding_cue_present"]