Ainul Hoque

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

Ainul Hoque, a paralegal/Chartered Legal Executive formerly employed by Equity Solicitors, appealed under s.44E and sought review under s.43(3) of a SRA Adjudicator's decision rebuking him and making a section 43 order. The misconduct arose from an Employment Tribunal claim against his former firm in which the judge found him dishonest; the SRA proceedings concerned his giving non-credible/potentially misleading evidence, assisting in drafting a 'witness testimony' bearing the firm's name without authority, and sending confidential client documents to his personal email. The Adjudicator found breaches of Principles 1, 2, 4 and 6 and lack of integrity, but stood over (and never pursued) the dishonesty allegation. The Tribunal held the Adjudicator applied the correct civil standard and her conclusions were not outside the bounds of reasonable disagreement, confirming both the section 43 order and rebuke and rejecting the argument that s.43 and s.44D powers could not be exercised simultaneously. The Appellant was ordered to pay £12,000 costs.

Duties found breached:

• Not mislead the court
• Integrity
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Act in the client's best interests
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• Handle inadvertently received material

Aggravating factors:

• Appellant was a Chartered Legal Executive/experienced litigator in a position of responsibility and trust
• Conduct had potential to mislead the Employment Tribunal
• Formed part of a pattern of misconduct
• Finding of lack of integrity

Mitigating factors:

• No finding of dishonesty was made
• No financial penalty imposed as no statement of means available
• No loss to clients and no personal gain (as found by CILEx)
• No prior conduct matters

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["review_dishonesty_finding_cue_present"]