Raja Shazad Khan; Ishtiaq Ahmed

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

Ishtiaq Ahmed (sole practitioner/owner of AUUA Law) and Raja Shazad Khan (a consultant whose practising certificate had been suspended after intervention into his former firm) faced SRA allegations. The Tribunal found that the First Respondent provided misleading information on the 11 May 2021 PII application (breaching Principles 2 and 5, recklessly but NOT dishonestly), employed the suspended solicitor 11-27 May 2021, permitted him to operate client/office accounts in breach of his conditions, and failed to comply with the Accounts Rules. Dishonesty was expressly NOT proved against the First Respondent. The Second Respondent was found to have practised while suspended and breached his PC conditions, with an express finding of dishonesty. The First Respondent was suspended for 1 year, suspended for 2 years; the Second Respondent was struck off (no exceptional circumstances under SRA v James). Each ordered to pay £25,000 costs (total reduced from £78,131.34 to £50,000).

Duties found breached:

• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Cease acting on client perjury or disobedience
• Handle inadvertently received material
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report
• No conflict between current clients
• Uphold public trust in the profession

Aggravating factors:

• Conduct not spontaneous; both had direct control and responsibility
• Both sufficiently experienced to understand nature and consequences of misconduct
• Financial motivation
• Second Respondent's dishonesty was planned, calculated and not limited in duration; he misled the First Respondent and defied his regulator
• Public placed at risk by a suspended solicitor conducting cases
• Second Respondent had previous disciplinary matter (12-month suspension and conditions in 2022)

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent: genuine insight, early open and frank admissions, full cooperation with regulator
• First Respondent: compelling character references and unblemished 24-year career
• First Respondent: exceptional personal circumstances (mother's death, trip to Kashmir, serious ill health, turmoil)
• First Respondent had been deceived by the Second Respondent and not motivated to act dishonestly
• Second Respondent: eventually made some admissions