Safina Bibi Shah & Shamilla Hanif

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

Safina Bibi Shah (senior partner and COLP of Isaac Abrahams Solicitors) and Shamilla Hanif (employed solicitor) faced disciplinary proceedings arising from mismanagement of 37 Noise Induced Hearing Loss claims, many of which were struck out, and from making false/misleading statements to courts and opponents. The First Respondent was found to have failed to supervise/manage, made misleading statements lacking integrity, and was found dishonest in respect of a 13 May 2015 letter to the court (Allegation 5); other allegations were proved as recklessness or manifest incompetence rather than dishonesty. She admitted a Principle 8 breach. The Second Respondent admitted allegations including dishonesty (signing a false statement of truth on Part 18 responses, procuring a misleading witness statement, and a false witness statement in Mr C's matter). Both Respondents were struck off the Roll. First Respondent ordered to pay £50,000 costs, Second Respondent £25,000 (total assessed at £75,000, apportioned two-thirds/one-third).

Duties found breached:

• No abuse of process or coercive powers
• No taking unfair advantage
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Act in the client's best interests
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• Firm governance, systems and compliance

Aggravating factors:

• Dishonesty (First Respondent one instance; Second Respondent multiple instances)
• Deliberate misconduct continued over a period of time
• Conduct intended to conceal other failures/mistakes
• First Respondent lacked insight and denied allegations, attacking the SRA for bringing them
• Harm to clients including a substantial adverse costs order against at least one client
• Damage to the reputation of the profession, including a District Judge requiring attendance to explain conduct
• Breach of trust placed by clients

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent: early admission of breach of Principle 8; previously unblemished career; significant personal/health difficulties (though not linked to misconduct by evidence)
• Second Respondent: admissions made (albeit late); genuine insight into misconduct; greater cooperation with the regulator; more junior role and shorter period of involvement; stressful office environment created by First Respondent