SDT: Strong evidence of rehabilitation
A solicitor prevented from being a law firm owner, partner or compliance officer for the last seven years has successfully applied to have the conditions on her practising certificate (PC) removed.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) said that Alima Maxsood (also known as Halima Maqsood Malik) had demonstrated to its satisfaction “that she had redeemed herself and could be trusted in the future”.
She qualified in 2006 and at the time of the misconduct was a partner at Malik Law Chambers, where she held both compliance roles.
In 2017, a different SDT panel found that she had lacked integrity in providing misleading information in a 2014 application for professional indemnity insurance.
Noting that Ms Maxsood had not shown “genuine insight” into her wrongdoing, it fined her £8,000 and placed conditions on her PC preventing her from owning or being a partner, or being a compliance officer, at any law firm. She has been issued with conditional PCs every year since.
Applying to have the conditions removed, Ms Maxsood said she had kept herself updated on changes to law and procedure – her training record for 2022/2023 showed she had attended 164 courses, covering her area of practice, family law, as well as professional ethics and compliance.
She has been working part-time since March 2022 at Birmingham firm Sulton Lloyd and her employer, Nighat Sultana, told the SDT that Ms Maxsood had shown integrity, probity and trustworthiness in her role.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) opposed the application, saying that while it appeared the solicitor “had started her rehabilitation”, removing the conditions “would cause harm to the public and the reputation of the profession, having regard to the nature of [her] misconduct, limited insight and the limited evidence of professional rehabilitation over a significant period of time since the conditions were imposed”.
The SDT said the fundamental question was whether the conditions were still necessary to protect the public or the reputation of the profession from any further misconduct.
It noted that “the main instigator of the misconduct had been the older, more experienced partner/owner of the firm”.
While it would not go behind the judgment of the earlier tribunal, Ms Maxsood had been unrepresented and emotional at the hearing “and, in hindsight, possibly not capable of presenting her case in the best light”.
The SDT went on: “There was no doubt the original breaches had been serious and there had been a finding of lack of integrity, however, there was no evidence of any further misconduct on the applicant’s part in the subsequent years and there was very convincing evidence that the conditions had been scrupulously complied with.”
Though she had only been back working as a solicitor for two years, she had previously been a paralegal and looking for legal work.
Ms Maxsood had completed “a vast number of professional training courses on integrity and ethical behaviour”, and shown “a steadfast commitment to work that benefitted the under privileged and vulnerable”.
The evidence of rehabilitation was “strong”, underlined by her conduct since 2017 and her character evidence, it went on.
“The tribunal had been impressed with her evidence, remorse, insight and commitment to good practice within the profession. With respect to the level of insight, the tribunal considered this to be very high and genuine.”
The SDT concluded that the conditions were no longer necessary.
Leave a Comment