R M A Khan & Another

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

The First Respondent, a solicitor, faced 17 allegations arising from an SRA inspection revealing a minimum client account shortage of £69,926.84 and multiple failures including breaches of the Solicitors Accounts Rules, failure to comply with undertakings, a dishonoured client account cheque, failure to redeem a mortgage causing a client's property to be repossessed, and failure to cooperate with the SRA. The alleged dishonesty (allegation 1) was NOT proved because the basis was not set out in the Rule 5 Statement and he was not cross-examined on it. Most other allegations were proved (allegation 14 relating to a personal County Court judgment was not proved). The Tribunal found he had failed to act with integrity, probity and trustworthiness and struck him off the Roll, ordering costs of £23,781.67 (not enforceable without leave). The Second Respondent, a registered foreign lawyer held out as a partner, was found liable for SAR breaches (no lack of integrity), suspended for 6 months and ordered to pay £4,196.76 costs.

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Diligence and timeliness
• Report serious misconduct of others
• Honour professional undertakings
• Not misrepresent regulated status

Aggravating factors:

• Conduct caused Mr Akhtar to lose his property which was repossessed after the First Respondent failed to discharge a legal charge
• Clients (Ms N and Mr N) deprived of funds and unable to complete a transaction
• First Respondent found to be contradictory, less than frank and not believed in his evidence
• No proper explanation given for how the client account shortage arose
• Failure to comply with undertakings described as the bedrock of conveyancing
• Repeated failures to cooperate with the SRA and the closure of the firm during investigation

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent's ill health and stress during the period leading up to intervention
• Firm's financial difficulties when conveyancing work dried up and it was removed from lender panels
• No previous disciplinary matters
• First Respondent had no income since November 2009 and considerable debts (costs not to be enforced without leave)
• Second Respondent conducted only immigration work and had no involvement in or control of the firm's accounts

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