Shafiq-ul Hassan

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

Mr Hassan, a solicitor and director/owner of City Law Solicitors Cardiff Ltd, faced allegations across Rule 12 and Rule 14 statements. The Tribunal found that during a May 2019 meeting he made untrue statements about ownership/transfer of a property and suggested an adjournment could be obtained by lying to the court, and that this conduct was dishonest (Allegations 1.1, 1.2, 1.3). On the Rule 14 allegations, the Tribunal found he sent a letter purporting to attach a chartered surveyor's report (Allegation 1.4, breach found but NOT dishonest, integrity intact) and breached an undertaking to pay £600 for the neighbours' surveyor report (Allegation 1.6, breach of Principle 2 found but no breach of integrity due to genuine mistaken belief). Despite dishonesty findings, the Tribunal found exceptional circumstances within the narrow residual Sharma category - the dishonesty was brief, confined to a single matter, without gain or actual harm, and motivated by a genuine desire to protect a coerced client. Striking off was deemed disproportionate; a 2-year suspension was imposed plus costs of £37,568.09.

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• No improper communication with the court
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Act in the client's best interests
• No conflict between current clients
• Competence
• Honour professional undertakings

Aggravating factors:

• Conduct was dishonest
• Misconduct was deliberate and calculated/planned and pre-meditated
• Experienced solicitor of around 20 years at the time
• Knew or ought reasonably to have known conduct breached obligations to protect public and profession's reputation

Mitigating factors:

• No previous disciplinary findings/unblemished 20-year career
• Client A faced coercion from third parties and Mr Hassan sought to protect him (laudable reasons)
• No loss or actual harm resulted
• No personal gain to the solicitor (retainer had terminated)
• Misconduct confined to a single meeting and brief duration
• Did not conceal comments or blame others
• Impressive testimonials
• Minimal risk of repetition