Alberto Khadra-Pozo

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

Alberto Khadra-Pozo, a solicitor admitted in 2004, faced multiple allegations relating to an incompetently drafted and potentially misleading judicial review application (Client Z), failure to file an application (Client M), handling of debt-recovery instructions and monies for Clients A and C, falsely denying receipt of £2,000 from Client C, and describing himself as a notary public when he was not. The Tribunal found a number of allegations proved including breaches of Principles 1, 2, 4 and 6 and failures to achieve various Outcomes. Express findings of dishonesty were made in respect of his false statement to Client C that no monies had been received (Allegation 3.2) and his describing himself as a notary public (Allegation 5). Allegations of dishonesty/recklessness regarding Client Z and the allegations relating to Client M (2.2, 3.1) and Client C instructions (2.3) were not proved. Although dishonesty would normally lead to strike-off, the Tribunal found exceptional circumstances - including the Respondent's severe ill-health, lack of financial gain, short-lived/one-off nature of the dishonesty - making striking off unjust. It imposed an indefinite suspension commencing 24 June 2021 and ordered costs of £750 (reduced from £47,653 due to allegations not proved and the Respondent's limited means).

Duties found breached:

• Act in the client's best interests
• Competence
• Honesty
• Integrity
• No conflict between current clients
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• Not mislead the court
• Uphold public trust in the profession

Aggravating factors:

• Dishonesty
• Misconduct was repeated (though not deliberate or calculated)
• Some misconduct continued over a period of time (notary public description)
• Respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known he was in material breach of his obligations

Mitigating factors:

• No financial gain, intended or actual; motivation was not financial or malicious but humanitarian
• Severe health issues at the material time which impaired judgment
• Made admissions to the notary public allegation and demonstrated insight
• Rectified the notary public issue before SRA involvement
• Cooperated with the SRA and Tribunal despite ongoing poor health
• Misconduct largely confined to a matter of months in 2018
• Altruism and support to the community