Hafiz & Haque, MD Nizmul Haque

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

The solicitor (a sole practitioner) and his firm appealed against an SRA Adjudication Panel decision that had rebuked them for (1) failing to nominate a COLP and COFA by 31 July 2012 and failing to respond to SRA communications (breach of Principle 7 and Outcome 10.8), (2) not having an approved COLP/COFA in place by 1 January 2013 (breach of Rule 8.5 of the SRA Authorisation Rules), and (3) failing to disclose a prior reprimand on the suitability questionnaire (breach of Principle 7). No dishonesty was alleged or found. The Tribunal found the Adjudication Panel's decision was wrong on the facts and, in places, in law: SRA communications had been sent to incorrect email addresses, there was no evidence of proper service of certain notices, the appellants responded promptly once properly notified, and the non-disclosure was a genuine innocent mistake made amid the death of the solicitor's mother. The Tribunal also held the finding of 'recklessness' was unsupported by reasons and incompatible with the Panel's own acceptance that the conduct was not deliberate. The Tribunal upheld the appeal, revoked the SRA decision in full, and ordered the SRA to pay the appellants' costs limited to counsel's fees of £4,750 (excluding VAT).

Mitigating factors:

• Solicitor's mother became unwell abroad and died on 18 January 2013 during the relevant period
• Prompt response by email on the same day the SRA's letter of 10 December 2012 was received
• Genuine/innocent mistake in completing the suitability questionnaire (returned within 3 working days)
• Voluntary disclosure of an Ombudsman complaint the SRA would not otherwise have known about