Mohammed Ekramul Hoque Mazumder; Naser Khan; Salauddin Khan

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

Mr Mazumder, owner/sole manager of Heans Solicitors, failed to supervise staff and maintain systems over judicial review claims (admitted Allegation 1.1). Following a High Court Hamid hearing referral, he submitted two witness statements (16 May and 2 July 2019) containing false/misleading assertions — that the Mahfuz claim was Mr S Khan's first independently worked JR, that prior JRs had been advised/drafted by counsel, and that documents were filed unchecked due to time pressures. The Tribunal found these assertions false and made an express finding of dishonesty, breaching Principles 1, 2 and 6. Some particulars (that the firm 'rarely'/'very few' dealt with JR cases) were found not proved. He was struck off; no exceptional circumstances (Sharma) found. Second Respondent Naser Khan was found to have signed a contract with supervisory clauses beyond his competence (Principle 6) and to have requested client money into his personal account and retained £160 (Principles 2, 4, 6) — fined £5,000 (reduced for means) and costs £11,970 (not enforceable without leave). Third Respondent Salauddin Khan signed a witness statement he had not read (Principles 1, 6) but under duress from Mr Mazumder; no dishonesty or lack of integrity found — No Order and no costs. Costs ordered against Mr Mazumder totalled £63,840; overall costs claimed £82,419.68 apportioned 80/15/5%.

Duties found breached:

• Honesty
• Integrity
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Act in the client's best interests
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• Firm governance, systems and compliance

Aggravating factors:

• Proven dishonesty in witness statements submitted to the High Court
• Conduct deliberate, calculated and repeated over a period of time
• Abuse of position of authority over Mr S Khan, who was vulnerable due to immigration status; coercion/bullying to sign a statement accepting blame
• Motivated by desire to protect himself and his firm/income
• Previous disciplinary finding (fined £2,000 in 2015)
• Concern over registration of a trust deed during proceedings as a device to avoid costs liability

Mitigating factors:

• Tribunal found no mitigating features for Mr Mazumder