SDT: Solicitor was reckless but not dishonest in the circumstances
A solicitor who practised while suspended has been struck off, while the law firm owner who unwittingly employed him has received a suspended sentence.
The “element of deception” on the part of Raja Shazad Khan was an important factor in the decision to give Ishtiaq Ahmed a one-year suspension, suspended for two years.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) heard that Mr Khan, who qualified in 2008, had been a sole practitioner in Accrington but in June 2020 his firm, Justice Solicitors Ltd (JSL) closed, as he could not get professional indemnity insurance (PII).
Mr Ahmed, who qualified in 2000, was a sole practitioner in Bolton trading as AUUA Law and agreed to make the Accrington practice a branch of his own. Nothing changed at JSL following the takeover.
In November 2020, while Mr Ahmed was in Pakistan and non-contactable, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) – seeing that JSL appeared to be trading exactly as it had been previously – intervened in Mr Khan’s practice. As a result, his practising certificate was suspended.
The SDT found that Mr Khan did not tell Mr Ahmed any of this until 11 May 2021; the SRA did not inform Mr Ahmed either about Mr Khan’s practising status.
The SDT said he carried on in practice “more or less as before his practising certificate was suspended”, with the Accrington branch of AUUA in effect still JSL and under his control.
In March 2021, Mr Rehman made an application for PII that did not mention Mr Khan’s involvement at the firm but the SDT rejected an allegation that he had misled the insurer as he had genuine reason to believe at the time that Mr Khan was leaving the firm.
However, Mr Khan changed his mind soon after, and then Mr Rehman fell seriously ill.
On 11 May 2021, in an acrimonious meeting, Mr Khan revealed to Mr Rehman that he was suspended.
On the same day, another application for PII was made, with Mr Rehman’s PA transposing information from the previous form, meaning the insurer was misled about Mr Khan’s involvement at AUUA.
His daughter drove him to the office, where the PA brought the form to him for signing in the car without examining it.
Mr Rehman accepted that this was reckless and lacking in integrity, but in the circumstances the SDT did not find it was dishonest.
While it was Mr Rehman’s view that “he would now immediately ensure that [Mr Khan] was nothing to do with his practice”, the insurance company should still have been told of his involvement.
Mr Khan’s practising certificate, with conditions, was restored on 28 May 2021. Mr Rehman was found to have employed a suspended solicitor from 11 May until then, although in the knowledge that the SRA had agreed to restore the certificate.
“Plainly” Mr Khan should not have worked for the firm between those two dates, the SDT said. He had also acted dishonestly in practising while suspended.
Mr Rehman admitted allowing Mr Khan to run the accounts of JSL in breach of the conditions he knew were on his practising certificate.
This meant that, until 6 October 2021, when AUUA closed, Mr Khan had been a signatory to AUUA’s office and client accounts, and authorised transfers from them, when he should not have done.
In deciding sanction, the SDT said the two solicitors’ conduct, individually and collectively, “represented a significant departure from the complete integrity, probity and trustworthiness expected of solicitors”.
While there was no real mitigation for Mr Khan, Mr Rehman had shown “genuine insight” and made open admissions at an early stage. He had also presented “compelling character references attesting to his professional and personal qualities”.
The SDT rejected Mr Khan’s submission that it impose a sanction less than strike-off.
The pair were also ordered to pay costs of £25,000 each, the SDT having reduced the SRA’s request for costs of £78,000, in part because it had not succeeded on every allegation.
In 2022, the SDT suspended Mr Khan for a year for failing to supervise an unadmitted consultant who allowed the firm’s client account to be used by a foreign royal as a banking facility in a bid to buy three supercars.
Leave a Comment