§ discipline
‹ Browse decisions

Declan Adams and Liaqat Ali Malik

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number8846/2003
Date01/01/2003
OutcomeStrike off, Suspend - Fixed Period

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Failures, Others

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

SanctionStrike Off
Suspension6 months
Dishonesty foundYes

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard allegations against Declan Adams (solicitor, R1) and Liaqat Ali Malik (registered foreign lawyer, R2) arising from an LSC audit of the Manchester firm Malik Adams which conducted substantial publicly funded work. The Tribunal found all allegations proved: breaches of Regulation 72, overclaims on payments on account, an unreliable time recording system, failure to keep proper accounting records, and unjustified translation disbursements. R2 was found to be the prime mover and effective controller of the civil practice, using R1 as a figurehead principal without supervision. The Tribunal made an express finding of dishonesty against R2 (lying to LSC auditor Mr Cowley about his ownership of Asian Media Services and producing translation invoices that could not honestly be claimed). No dishonesty was found against R1, who was deemed naive but culpable. R2 was struck off the Register of Foreign Lawyers and ordered to pay all interlocutory costs plus 80% of remaining costs; R1 was suspended for 6 months and ordered to pay 20% of costs (costs subject to detailed assessment, no figures stated).

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • R2 shifted all blame onto R1
  • R2 made no acknowledgement of fault
  • R2 mounted an unjustified attack on the credibility/good faith of the LSC auditor
  • Systematic nature of the overclaims and widespread failure to report

Mitigating factors:

  • R1 was naive and had been misled by R2 as to R2's professional status
  • R1 admitted allegation (vi) and cooperated with the Law Society's enquiries
  • R1 had limited control over the practice due to language barrier and R2's domineering conduct
  • R2's professional achievements/awards and written references
  • R2's ill health (hypertension) and delay in proceedings

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/8846/