Jamil Ahmud

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

Jamil Ahmud faced three allegations relating to submitting a bill of costs at a higher hourly rate than charged to Client A (advanced with an aggravating allegation of dishonesty), submitting disproportionate bills, and failing to comply with a production notice. Before any substantive hearing the SRA applied to withdraw all allegations, having belatedly obtained evidence from Client A that corroborated the Respondent's defence and reduced the seriousness of the conduct. The Tribunal granted the withdrawal, so no allegations were proved and no dishonesty was found. On the Respondent's costs application, applying the Flynn principles, the Tribunal found good reason to depart from the default of no order against a regulator, identifying a series of grave errors: failing to interview the key witness (Client A) before bringing dishonesty allegations, re-opening a closed investigation contrary to its Reconsideration Policy without telling the Respondent, omitting the investigation history from the Rule 5 Statement, continuing after receiving the client care letter, and delaying contact with Client A. The Tribunal ordered the SRA to pay the Respondent's costs subject to detailed assessment, with a £40,000 interim payment. On appeal (dismissed by consent October 2021) the SRA agreed to pay £228,000 in costs. Applications for indemnity-basis costs and anonymity were refused.