Imran Uddin & Muzammil Hussain Abid

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

The SRA brought allegations against two partners of Crescent Law Limited concerning the pursuit of fraudulent personal injury claims, payment of clients' damages to third parties (CMCs) without consent, harassment/misleading of RTA victims, and failures to supervise. The Tribunal found allegations 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 proved against both respondents. The Second Respondent (head of the PI department) was found dishonest in respect of knowingly allowing the firm to pursue fraudulent claims (1.1), knowingly allowing damages of Clients 1, 2 and 3 to be paid to third parties (part of 1.2), and lying to the SRA/FIO about a directorship of JDA (3.2). He was struck off. The First Respondent (senior partner, COLP, COFA) admitted breaches based on systemic failures but was NOT found dishonest on any allegation (allegations 4.1 and 4.2 dismissed against him). Allegation 2.1 (misleading insurer) was proved against the First Respondent but without dishonesty; 2.2 (inadequate CDD) admitted. Allegation 1.3 dismissed against both; 3.1 dismissed against the Second Respondent. The First Respondent was suspended for 2 years with subsequent practising conditions. Each respondent was ordered to pay £38,325.15 in costs (total £78,650.30).

Duties found breached:

• Integrity
• Professional independence
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Act in the client's best interests
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• No improper use of client money
• Cooperate openly with regulators

Aggravating factors:

• Misconduct continued over a period of time
• Second Respondent's findings of dishonesty
• Second Respondent motivated by desire to increase revenue and grow the PI department
• Second Respondent attempted to conceal wrongdoing by relying on authorities he knew were not genuine
• First Respondent's previous appearance before the Tribunal (2007, fined £5,000)
• Clients deprived of damages they were entitled to

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent showed some insight and accepted responsibility for systemic failings
• First Respondent co-operated with the FIO throughout the investigation
• First Respondent expressed remorse and cited personal/political distractions
• Second Respondent had no previous disciplinary matters
• Second Respondent expressed remorse and accepted his career was over