Raja Shazad Khan; Ishtiaq Ahmed

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

AUUA Law sole practitioner Ishtiaq Ahmed (First Respondent) employed and enabled Raja Shazad Khan (Second Respondent) to work as a solicitor despite Khan's practising certificate being suspended after intervention into his former firm, and later while under conditions. Ahmed was found to have provided misleading information on a 11 May 2021 PII application (reckless, lacking integrity but NOT dishonest), employed a suspended solicitor 11-27 May 2021, permitted him to operate accounts in breach of conditions, and failed to comply with Accounts Rules. Dishonesty allegations against Ahmed were not proved and one allegation (misleading the FIO) was dismissed. Khan was found to have dishonestly practised while suspended and to have breached his practising conditions. The Tribunal suspended Ahmed for 1 year, itself suspended for 2 years, given substantial mitigation, and struck Khan off the Roll (no exceptional circumstances to depart from strike-off for dishonesty). Costs reduced from £78,131.34 to £50,000, split equally at £25,000 each.

Duties found breached:

• Prosecutorial duty of disclosure
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• No conflict between current clients
• Report serious misconduct of others
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues

Aggravating factors:

• Second Respondent's conduct deliberate and calculated; misled the First Respondent and defied his regulator
• Dishonesty not limited in duration; planned and thought out (Second Respondent)
• First Respondent acted recklessly and lacked integrity
• Motivation at core financial; public placed at risk with a suspended solicitor conducting cases
• Second Respondent had previous disciplinary matter (12-month suspension and conditions, 2022)

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent: genuine insight, early and frank admissions, full cooperation with regulator
• First Respondent: compelling character references, unblemished 24-year career, no previous discipline
• First Respondent: exceptional personal circumstances - mother's death, trip to Kashmir, serious ill health, deceived by Second Respondent, no financial motivation shown
• Second Respondent: eventually made admissions (to his credit)