Shazia Anjum

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

Shazia Anjum, a sole practitioner solicitor, faced six allegations relating to improper transfers of client money, failure to return client funds, attempting to circumvent an intervention, failing to deliver up files, holding herself out as a barrister, and accounts records failures. The Tribunal found she dishonestly made improper transfers from client account (in respect of Clients K, H and M) into office and personal 'Chambers' accounts, fabricating an attendance sheet and inventing a loan agreement to justify the transfers, and dishonestly attempted to arrange for Client A to pay fees into an account other than the frozen Firm accounts to circumvent the intervention. She was also found to have failed to return funds to Client R, failed to deliver up files, misleadingly held herself out as a barrister (breaching Principle 6 but not integrity), and failed to keep proper accounting records and reconciliations. Two dishonesty allegations (1.1 and 1.3(a)) were proved; allegations 1.3(b) and (c) and the associated dishonesty were not proved, and integrity breaches under 1.5 were not proved. The hearing proceeded in her absence on the final two days. Finding no exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal ordered she be struck off and pay costs of £51,954.40.

Duties found breached:

• No prejudicial publicity for pending cases
• Honesty
• Integrity
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Act in the client's best interests
• Segregate client money
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Cooperate openly with regulators

Aggravating factors:

• Two allegations involved dishonesty
• Deliberate and planned conduct extending over several months
• Position of trust regarding client money
• Conduct entirely within her control
• Lack of meaningful insight, heightening continuing risk to public
• Attempted to circumvent an intervention by seeking payment into another account

Mitigating factors:

• Previously unblemished disciplinary record
• Cooperated with the investigation and engaged with early stages of proceedings
• No client ultimately lost money
• Personal circumstances including ill health around the time (though unsupported by medical evidence) and a family bereavement