Skip to main content
discipline 4 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Tasaduq Hussain & Nadia Akhtar

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number10908/2012
Date01/01/2012
OutcomeFine, S.43 Order (clerks)

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Client Money, Failures, Others

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

SanctionOther
FineGBP 3,000
CostsGBP 14,000
Dishonesty foundYes

Disciplinary proceedings against four respondents arising from an SRA forensic investigation. Allegations against the First Respondent (a recognised body) were withdrawn as a preliminary matter because the events predated that company's formation. The Second Respondent, a solicitor, was found to have breached Rules 1.04 and 5.01 by signing a Certificate of Title despite a purchase price discrepancy (failing to act in the lender's best interests) and by failing to supervise staff; she was fined £3,000 with a practising restriction recommendation and ordered to pay £6,000 costs. The Third Respondent (an unadmitted practice manager) was found to have dishonestly misappropriated £84,000 and written misleading/untruthful letters; a Section 43 order was made and he was ordered to pay £6,000 costs. The Fourth Respondent, a trainee solicitor, admitted failing to identify mortgage fraud hallmarks and failing to act in her clients' best interests; a Section 43 order was made and she was ordered to pay £2,000 costs. Total costs assessed at £14,000.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Express finding of dishonesty against the Third Respondent under the Twinsectra combined test
  • Misappropriation of £84,000 which had not been repaid
  • Third Respondent mingled his own business (LCS) with the firm and used firm notepaper to write false letters

Mitigating factors:

  • Fourth Respondent was a trainee solicitor who received little training and minimal supervision, admitted the allegations, no dishonesty alleged against her
  • Second Respondent had an unblemished career record of over nine years with no client complaints
  • Second Respondent was left running the firm alone after a co-director resigned

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/10908/