Mohinuz Zaman & C&G Solicitors Limited

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

Mohinuz Zaman, a solicitor with over ten years' experience at C&G Solicitors, acted for both the transferor (Person 3, aged 65) and transferee (Person 1, aged 26) in a property transaction whereby Person 3 gifted his home for no consideration to a person with no apparent relationship to him. Person 1 was later criminally convicted of fraud. The Tribunal found Zaman failed to adequately advise Person 3 of the risks of the transaction (allegation 1.1) and acted despite a clear and significant conflict of interest without proper safeguards (allegation 1.2). Both allegations were proved along with the aggravating allegation of manifest incompetence. No dishonesty was alleged or found. The Tribunal found high culpability and serious harm, no meaningful insight, and profound concern about ongoing risk to the public, warranting strike off. The allegation against the Firm was not proved because it had not been alerted to the conflict by Zaman (he failed to add the Conflict Register to the central register or bring it to the supervisor's attention). Zaman was struck off and ordered to pay £20,000 costs; no order against the Firm.

Duties found breached:

• No taking unfair advantage
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Act in the client's best interests
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues

Aggravating factors:

• Manifest incompetence found proved
• Continual blaming of others rather than accepting responsibility
• Vulnerability of Person 3 (65-year-old transferring home for no consideration)
• Risk of conflict was blatant and steps required to manage it were basic and fundamental
• No meaningful insight or remorse; repeatedly asserted he had done nothing wrong
• Experienced solicitor with over ten years' experience
• High culpability with direct control and responsibility

Mitigating factors:

• Single episode on a single file in an otherwise unblemished career
• No previous disciplinary findings
• Direct harm to Person 3 primarily caused by fraud perpetrated by others
• Made some admissions in his Answer
• Did not mislead the SRA