Soophia Khan

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

Soophia Khan, sole principal of Sophie Khan & Co Ltd, faced 12 allegations. The Tribunal found she settled two clients' (DC and JN) damages and costs claims without their knowledge, authority or consent, for far less than she had advised, paid settlement monies into the firm's office account without a bill or notification, breached undertakings to the clients' former solicitors (MW) and appropriated the entire settlement (including MW's share). She fabricated documents (Pro-Forma Fee Note and letters) to justify retaining the costs. The Tribunal made express findings of dishonesty on allegations 1.1 to 1.6. She also failed to cooperate with the SRA and Legal Ombudsman regarding client JH, failed to comply with the LeO final decision, failed to comply with court orders, and was found in contempt of court and imprisoned for failing to deliver up practice documents during the SRA intervention. The Tribunal found the misconduct so serious, including dishonesty, that only striking off was appropriate; even allegations 1.9-1.12 alone would have warranted striking off. She was struck off the Roll and ordered to pay costs of £109,681.82. The hearing proceeded largely in her absence.

Duties found breached:

• Comply with and respect court orders
• Act in the client's best interests
• Act only on proper, lawful instructions
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• No conflict between current clients
• Firm governance, systems and compliance
• Honour professional undertakings

Aggravating factors:

• Multiple findings of dishonesty (allegations 1.1-1.6)
• Conduct was deliberate, calculated and repeated over a period of time
• Motivated by financial gain for herself and the Firm
• Fabrication of documents to conceal wrongdoing
• Committed to prison for contempt of court; deliberate breach of court orders
• Complete lack of insight, remorse and contrition
• Abuse of position as solicitor with conduct of the costs negotiations
• Caused immense damage to the reputation of the profession
• Harm to clients (DC and JN left with substantial costs liability) and to former firm MW

Mitigating factors:

• No previous disciplinary matters before the Tribunal