Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
โ€น Browse decisions

Decision record

Declan Adams and Liaqat Ali Malik

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number8846/2003
Date01/01/2003
OutcomeStrike off, Suspend - Fixed Period

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Failures, Others

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

SanctionStrike Off
Suspension6 months
Dishonesty foundYes

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard allegations against Declan Adams (solicitor, R1) and Liaqat Ali Malik (registered foreign lawyer, R2) arising from the practice Malik Adams, largely engaged in publicly funded immigration work. The Tribunal found proved allegations of breach of Regulation 72, overclaiming payments on account, using an unreliable time recording system, failing to keep proper accounting records, and claiming unjustified translation disbursements, against both respondents. R1 admitted failing to supervise R2 (Rule 1). The Tribunal made an express finding of dishonesty against R2, concluding he deliberately lied to the LSC investigator (Mr Cowley) about his ownership of Asian Media Services and that translation invoices were dishonestly created after the event. No dishonesty was found against R1, who was found naive but seriously culpable, and who had been misled by R2. R2 was struck off the Register of Foreign Lawyers; R1 was suspended for six months from 1 October 2004. R1 was ordered to pay 20% of costs; R2 to pay all interlocutory costs and 80% of remaining costs, subject to detailed assessment; no monetary figures stated.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Express dishonesty by R2 (deliberate lie to LSC officer; dishonest translation invoices)
  • R2 sought to shift all blame onto R1
  • R2 declined to give oral evidence and attacked the good faith of the LSC investigator
  • Systematic nature of overclaims and widespread failure to report

Mitigating factors:

  • R1 had been misled by R2 as to his professional status
  • R1 was naive and cooperated with the Law Society enquiries; admitted allegation (vi)
  • R2's professional awards and contributions (Male Professional of the Year 2001, TV award 2002)
  • R2's ill health (hypertension, hospitalisation) and delay in proceedings

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/8846/