Aurang Khattak, Shane Z Khattak & Another

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

Three respondents connected to Caffrey & Co, Birmingham. Dishonesty allegations against the First and Third Respondents were withdrawn; no express finding of dishonesty was made. The First Respondent (sole principal) admitted 15 allegations including accounts rule breaches, failure to act in clients' best interests, failure to supervise conveyancing transactions bearing hallmarks of mortgage fraud, failure to fulfil undertakings, failing to cooperate with the SRA, ARP premium defaults and failure to deliver accountant's reports; he was struck off and ordered to pay £43,897.78 costs. The Second Respondent admitted failing to deliver an accountant's report and was fined £3,000 plus £5,000 costs. The Third Respondent (unadmitted) admitted acting in transactions with mortgage fraud hallmarks and was made subject to a section 43 order, ordered to pay £17,000 costs. Total costs £65,897.78.

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• Integrity
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Firm governance, systems and compliance
• Professional indemnity insurance
• Honour professional undertakings

Aggravating factors:

• First Respondent was sole principal responsible for supervision during most of the relevant period
• Under his management money was paid to fictitious sellers' solicitors and large sums of client money went missing
• Clients' property sold in breach of their wishes
• Gross dereliction of duty as partner and trustee of client monies
• Almost total disregard for protection of clients and their interests
• Failure to properly supervise closure of the firm allowing continued unauthorised use of client account
• Multiple serious breaches (15 allegations against First Respondent)
• Third Respondent's conduct at highest end of seriousness even absent dishonesty; continued acting after being alerted to a fictitious firm

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent had no prior disciplinary appearances
• First Respondent's inexperience in conveyancing/commercial work (background in criminal law)
• First Respondent self-reported and requested SRA intervention, identifying suspected fraud by others
• Second Respondent submitted testimonials and was only a salaried partner for a limited period
• Third Respondent submitted testimonials, was unadmitted, had no legal training save at the firm, and health difficulties (heart attack/pacemaker)

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