Ehsan Kabir & Second Respondent

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

Joint SDT proceedings against two solicitors of No.1 Solicitors. Most allegations (that the firm was run as two unauthorised businesses, failures to notify, misleading conduct etc.) were found not proved to the criminal standard. Against the First Respondent (Ehsan Kabir) only allegation 1.9 was proved: he dishonestly gave contradictory/misleading information to the SRA about when the Second Respondent ceased to be a director and about whether the shareholders agreement was signed/followed. The Tribunal made an express finding of dishonesty under Ivey and, finding no exceptional circumstances (Sharma/James), struck him off and ordered costs of £35,473.91. Against the Second Respondent, breaches of the Authorisation Rules, Practice Framework Rules, SRA Indemnity Insurance Rules, Code Outcomes and the Solicitors Act were proved (unauthorised practice, no PII, misleading website, working as an uncertificated paralegal). No dishonesty or lack of integrity was found. She received a 12-month suspension, itself suspended for 2 years, with indefinite conditions on practice, and was ordered to pay costs of £42,227.75.

Duties found breached:

• Not mislead the court
• Handle inadvertently received material
• Hold a current practising certificate

Aggravating factors:

• First Respondent's misconduct involved dishonesty
• Conduct was repeated (contradictory self-serving statements over time)
• Knew or ought to have known conduct was harmful to reputation of the profession
• Complicated and extended the SRA investigation
• Second Respondent was a reasonably experienced solicitor who should have known the practice rules
• Second Respondent had a previous SRA rebuke for similar unauthorised practice/PII failings

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent's relative youth and inexperience (fewer than three years PQE)
• First Respondent's difficult family/personal circumstances and caring responsibilities
• No previous disciplinary findings against either Respondent
• Character references for the First Respondent
• Second Respondent was open/transparent about how she was practising rather than concealing it
• Second Respondent showed genuine regret and insight and made admissions to most allegations found proved
• Second Respondent's difficult personal circumstances

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["unverified_costs_amount=77701.66"]