R Z Choudhury & M Kamruzzaman

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

Rahat Zaman Choudhury (sole principal) and Mohammad Kamruzzaman (assistant solicitor) of Zaman Choudhury & Co were found to have committed numerous Solicitors' Accounts Rules breaches, with a minimum client account shortage of £101,219.86. The Tribunal found both Respondents acted dishonestly in relation to the Mrs M-O, Clients S/P & Others, and Mr S & Mrs A matters (applying the Twinsectra test), where client cash was diverted to the First Respondent's personal use with the Second Respondent's knowledge. The First Respondent used client funds for his own purposes and later replaced them; the Second Respondent handed client cash to the First Respondent knowing it would be misused and himself took a salary advance from client money. Finding no exceptional circumstances (per Sharma), the Tribunal struck both Respondents off the Roll. Costs of £52,000 total were ordered (£35,000 against the First, £17,000 against the Second), not to be enforced without leave. The First Respondent's High Court appeal was dismissed.

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• No conflict between current clients
• Handle inadvertently received material
• No improper use of client money
• Report serious misconduct of others

Aggravating factors:

• First Respondent's cavalier and reckless disregard of proper obligations; abdication of responsibility and blaming Second Respondent
• Client funds placed at risk; conduct over a number of months
• Use of the Second Respondent and his wife to subvert Bangladesh exchange control limits
• Both Respondents personally benefited from client funds (First Respondent's daughter's wedding, personal loans, airline tickets, office bills; Second Respondent received salary advance of £465)
• First Respondent not a credible witness; flippant and cavalier

Mitigating factors:

• No previous disciplinary matters
• No intention permanently to deprive clients; funds later replaced
• Relatively small amount of money involved given the firm's volume of files
• Second Respondent's cooperation with SRA (charges resulted from his admissions)
• Second Respondent's relative inexperience, misguided loyalty to First Respondent, and strong character references
• First Respondent's remorse and payments to reduce shortfalls