Aurang Khattak, Shane Z Khattak & Another

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

Three respondents from Caffrey & Co, Birmingham. The First Respondent (sole principal) admitted 15 allegations including breaches of the Solicitors Accounts Rules, failure to supervise conveyancing transactions bearing hallmarks of mortgage fraud (mortgage monies paid to fictitious sellers' solicitors and lost), failure to fulfil undertakings, failure to deal openly with the SRA, ARP indemnity premium default, and failure to deliver accountant's reports. All dishonesty allegations against the First and Third Respondents were withdrawn with the Tribunal's consent. The First Respondent was found not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll and was struck off, ordered to pay £43,897.78 costs. The Second Respondent (salaried partner for a limited period) admitted only failure to deliver an accountant's report; charges based on disputed signatures were withdrawn. He was fined £3,000 and ordered to pay £5,000 costs. The Third Respondent (unadmitted son of the First Respondent) admitted, absent dishonesty, all seven allegations relating to mortgage fraud transactions and was made subject to a section 43 order, ordered to pay £17,000 costs.

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• No improper communication with the court
• Integrity
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Professional indemnity insurance
• Honour professional undertakings

Aggravating factors:

• Sole principal who failed to supervise an unadmitted person while admitting he knew nothing about conveyancing
• Large sums of client money went missing (e.g. £250,000 Halifax funds; £425,500 Nationwide loss)
• Continued conducting transactions involving fictitious firms after being put on notice
• Gross dereliction of duty as partner and trustee
• Conveyancing transaction and client account activity continued after firm's purported closure

Mitigating factors:

• No finding of dishonesty (allegations withdrawn)
• No previous disciplinary appearances
• First Respondent's background in criminal law with no commercial/conveyancing experience and reliance on staff/bookkeepers
• Reported matters to police and invited SRA intervention
• Health difficulties (Third Respondent had heart attack and pacemaker; First Respondent stress/medical issues)
• Second Respondent only salaried partner for limited period with single remaining admitted allegation

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["review_dishonesty_finding_cue_present"]