Kamran Adil & A nother

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

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that the First Respondent, Kamran Adil (a Registered Foreign Lawyer and senior principal of Tavistock Law Ltd), had involved himself in conveyancing transactions bearing the hallmarks of mortgage fraud, in which client/completion monies were dispersed to unrelated third parties (leaving a shortage exceeding £2 million), gave false assurances (including a fabricated CHAPS voucher), failed to supervise staff, practised without PII, failed to effect orderly closure, and failed to co-operate with the SRA. The Tribunal made an express finding of dishonesty against him under the Twinsectra test and struck him off, ordering him to pay £34,000 costs. The Second Respondent, an elderly solicitor who had been manoeuvred into acting as a front for the firm and had no involvement in the frauds, admitted failing to supervise staff, ensure compliance with the Accounts Rules and control the firm's finances; no lack of integrity or dishonesty was found against him. He was reprimanded, made subject to a practising restriction, and ordered to pay £1,000 costs (not enforceable without leave of the Tribunal).

Duties found breached:

• Integrity
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Act in the client's best interests
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• No improper use of client money
• Firm governance, systems and compliance

Aggravating factors:

• Proven dishonesty that was deliberate, calculated and repeated
• Conduct was planned and premeditated (moving decimal point to pay only 10% of redemption amounts)
• Concealment of wrongdoing by removing files and computers and abandoning the practice
• Substantial harm caused to individual victims and to public trust in the profession
• First Respondent motivated by greed

Mitigating factors:

• Second Respondent had no previous disciplinary record and an unblemished 40+ year career
• Second Respondent had low culpability, was drawn unwittingly into a pre-planned fraud and had little opportunity to prevent it
• Second Respondent derived no financial benefit and was not even paid his salary
• Second Respondent co-operated fully with the SRA, showed insight and admitted the allegations