Tasaduq Hussain & Nadia Akhtar

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

SDT case against four respondents. Allegations against the First Respondent (a recognised body) were withdrawn as it was a separate 'Phoenix' company not accountable for the prior firm's actions. The Second Respondent (solicitor) was found to have breached Rules 1.04 and 5.01 by signing a Certificate of Title with a discrepant purchase price (failing the lender) and failing to supervise staff; she was fined £3,000 and ordered to pay £6,000 costs, with a practising recommendation. The Third Respondent (unadmitted practice manager) was found to have dishonestly misappropriated £84,000 of client money and written misleading/untruthful letters; the Tribunal applied the Twinsectra combined test and found dishonesty proven. The Fourth Respondent (trainee solicitor) admitted failing to identify mortgage fraud and failing to act in clients' best interests. Section 43 orders were made against the Third and Fourth Respondents, who were ordered to pay £6,000 and £2,000 costs respectively. Total costs summarily assessed at £14,000.

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Act in the client's best interests
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money

Aggravating factors:

• Misappropriation of £84,000 not repaid
• Use of firm notepaper to write misleading letters without principal's knowledge
• Transaction with clear discrepancy in purchase price (£920,000 vs £675,000) indicating mortgage fraud

Mitigating factors:

• Second Respondent had unblemished record and was not a conveyancer, left to run firm alone after co-director resigned
• Fourth Respondent was a trainee solicitor with little training and minimal supervision, admitted allegations, no dishonesty alleged against her
• Third Respondent's diabetes and limited work capacity