Imran Rashid & Hafizah Mensurah Begum & Adamsons Law Limited

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

The SRA brought three allegations against solicitor Imran Rashid, solicitor Hafizah Begum, and Adamsons Law Ltd concerning the payment of prohibited referral fees contrary to s.56 LASPO 2012, allowing introducers to influence choice of medical agency, and providing clients inaccurate information about introducers' financial interests. The First and Third Respondents admitted all allegations; the Second Respondent contested them (including an unsuccessful no-case-to-answer submission on referral fees). The Tribunal found all allegations proved against all respondents. Although it found the Second Respondent to be an unreliable, evasive and at times misleading witness, it made no express finding of dishonesty. Sanction: fines of £5,000 (First Respondent), £5,000 (Second Respondent) and £2,000 (Third Respondent, reduced due to it being effectively the First Respondent's business). Costs of £24,000 were apportioned, with the Second Respondent paying two-thirds (£16,000) due to contesting the case and prolonging the hearing, and the First and Third Respondents paying £4,000 each.

Duties found breached:

• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Act in the client's best interests
• Advise objectively, not a mere conduit
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• Disclose referrals, commissions and benefits

Aggravating factors:

• Conduct repeated over a period of time
• Respondents ought reasonably to have known the conduct was in material breach of obligations to protect the public and the reputation of the profession
• Second Respondent had a personal financial interest (managing husband's ~£80,000 investment and profit-share bonus expectation)
• Second Respondent did not show insight or remorse

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent made early, open and frank admissions and showed genuine insight and remorse
• Previously unblemished records
• Misconduct took place over a brief duration
• Low risk of repetition (First Respondent)
• No client suffered losses; harm assessed as low
• Full co-operation with the regulator (First Respondent)
• Good testimonials provided (Second Respondent)
• Second Respondent early in her legal career and could have been better supported

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["unverified_fine_amount=12000"]