Mohammed Ekramul Hoque Mazumder; Naser Khan; Salauddin Khan

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

Three respondents arising from a High Court Hamid referral concerning a relatively new immigration firm (Heans Solicitors) which filed multiple judicial review claims certified as totally without merit. First Respondent Mr Mazumder (owner/manager) admitted failing to supervise staff and maintain effective systems for JR claims (Allegation 1.1). The Tribunal found he submitted witness statements (16 May and 2 July 2019) to the High Court containing false and misleading assertions that the Mahfuz claim was Mr S Khan's first independently worked JR, that prior JRs had been advised on/drafted by counsel, and that documents were filed without review due to time pressures - finding these dishonest. Allegations that the firm 'rarely' dealt with JR cases were not proved (factually accurate in context). He was struck off, no exceptional circumstances found, with costs of £63,840 (no means reduction given concerns over a trust deed registered to avoid costs). Second Respondent Mr N Khan (qualified Jan 2018) was found to have signed a contract entailing supervisory responsibilities beyond his competence (breach of Principle 6) and to have requested client money be paid to his personal account and retained £160 (breaches of Principles 2, 4, 6) - no dishonesty alleged/found; fined £5,000 (reduced from £10,000 for means) plus costs of £11,970 (not enforceable without leave). Third Respondent Mr S Khan (unadmitted) was found to have signed a witness statement he had not read (Principle 1 and 6 breaches) but the Tribunal found he acted under duress from Mr Mazumder, so no breach of integrity (Principle 2) and no dishonesty; No Order and no costs given low culpability and limited means.

Duties found breached:

• Act in the client's best interests
• Competence
• Firm governance, systems and compliance
• Integrity
• Serve justice and improve the law
• Uphold public trust in the profession

Aggravating factors:

• Proven dishonesty in submitting false/misleading witness statements to the High Court
• Deliberate, calculated and repeated conduct over a period of time
• Abuse of position of authority over Mr S Khan, who was vulnerable by virtue of immigration status
• Coercion/bullying of Mr S Khan into signing a statement accepting blame
• Motivated by desire to protect himself, his firm and income stream
• Experienced solicitor with a previous disciplinary finding (2015, £2,000 fine)
• Attempted to evade costs liability by registering a trust deed during proceedings