M J Ashraf & 2 Others

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

SDT decision concerning three respondents arising from sham partnerships set up to obtain lender panel status. Registered Foreign Lawyer Ashraf abandoned the A M Patel & Co practice, breached the Solicitors Accounts Rules, failed to register lender charges, breached an undertaking, failed to cooperate with the SRA, and was convicted of a passport/ID offence the Tribunal expressly found involved dishonesty; he was struck off the Register of Foreign Lawyers, made subject to a s.43 order, and ordered to pay £35,000 costs. Respondent 1 failed to supervise Ashraf, breached the SAR, failed to honour undertakings and respond to the regulator, and an IPS award; he was suspended 2 years and ordered to pay £52,000. Respondent 2 was found in breach of Code Rule 1.04 and 1.06 and to have breached an undertaking and failed to supervise staff in a suspect Birmingham conveyancing transaction, but the integrity allegation (1.02) was NOT found; he was suspended 6 months and ordered to pay £20,000. Total costs £107,000, liability several. Dishonesty expressly found only against Ashraf.

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• Honesty
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• No conflict between current clients
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Supervise staff and delegated work
• Honour professional undertakings
• Comply with rules of foreign jurisdictions

Aggravating factors:

• Criminal conviction involving dishonesty (Ashraf)
• Sham partnerships entered into solely to obtain panel status with lenders
• Conveyancing transaction bearing the hallmarks of mortgage fraud
• Substantial client funds removed from client account following abandonment
• Persistent failure to respond to regulator and comply with awards
• Claims made on the Compensation Fund

Mitigating factors:

• Respondent 1: ill health/psychiatric treatment, no misappropriation by him, deceived by Ashraf, previously unblemished record
• Respondent 2: inexperience, only briefly a partner, suspicions genuinely not aroused (no integrity breach found), expressed remorse and learnt lessons
• Both Respondents 1 and 2 in parlous financial circumstances