Mohammed Saleem

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

Mohammed Saleem, a solicitor formerly a consultant at MT UK Solicitors, faced allegations of failing to account for client cash, providing his personal bank account details to another firm (Tolhurst) to receive £100 for conveyancing searches belonging to client KM, and drafting a misleading witness statement. The Tribunal found the Tramboo-related allegations unproven where they rested on weak/hearsay evidence, and did not find the firm's principal witnesses (Mr Tramboo and Ms Khurana) convincing. It found allegations 1.2-1.4 proved (providing personal bank details, receiving £100, and failing to account for it), constituting breaches of Rule 14.1 and Principles 2, 4, 6 and 10 of the 2011 Principles. Allegations 1.6.2 and 1.6.3 were found proved factually but, as they relied on unproven allegation 1.6.1, no Principle breaches were found. The Tribunal expressly found NO dishonesty on any allegation, accepting Saleem genuinely believed his supervisor's instructions were permissible. The Tribunal assessed the misconduct as moderately serious (Level 3), imposed a fine of £7,750, and ordered costs of £10,513 (reduced by two-thirds from the sum claimed because the SRA was unsuccessful on about two-thirds of its case).

Duties found breached:

• Integrity
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Act in the client's best interests
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money

Aggravating factors:

• Respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known the conduct was in material breach of obligations to protect the public and the reputation of the profession

Mitigating factors:

• Single, brief episode in a previously unblemished career
• Genuine insight and remorse demonstrated
• Appropriate admissions made to some allegations
• Acted on instruction and under pressure of his supervisor Mr Tramboo
• Money (£100) held in his account for less than 24 hours before being handed to Mr Tramboo
• Engaged with the regulator during investigation
• Limited experience and subordinate position within the firm
• Took remedial steps including AML course and obtaining a mentor

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