Decision record
Tasaduq Hussain & Nadia Akhtar
Allegation / charges
Breaches, Client Money, Failures, Others
Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision
Disciplinary proceedings against four respondents arising from an SRA forensic investigation. Allegations against the First Respondent (a recognised body) were withdrawn as a preliminary matter because the events predated that company's formation. The Second Respondent, a solicitor, was found to have breached Rules 1.04 and 5.01 by signing a Certificate of Title despite a purchase price discrepancy (failing to act in the lender's best interests) and by failing to supervise staff; she was fined £3,000 with a practising restriction recommendation and ordered to pay £6,000 costs. The Third Respondent (an unadmitted practice manager) was found to have dishonestly misappropriated £84,000 and written misleading/untruthful letters; a Section 43 order was made and he was ordered to pay £6,000 costs. The Fourth Respondent, a trainee solicitor, admitted failing to identify mortgage fraud hallmarks and failing to act in her clients' best interests; a Section 43 order was made and she was ordered to pay £2,000 costs. Total costs assessed at £14,000.
Duties found breached:
- Proper basis for allegations
- Not mislead third parties or opponents
- Act in the client's best interests
- No conflict between current clients
- No improper use of client money
- Supervise staff and delegated work
Aggravating factors:
- Express finding of dishonesty against the Third Respondent under the Twinsectra combined test
- Misappropriation of £84,000 which had not been repaid
- Third Respondent mingled his own business (LCS) with the firm and used firm notepaper to write false letters
Mitigating factors:
- Fourth Respondent was a trainee solicitor who received little training and minimal supervision, admitted the allegations, no dishonesty alleged against her
- Second Respondent had an unblemished career record of over nine years with no client complaints
- Second Respondent was left running the firm alone after a co-director resigned