SDT slammed by black lawyers

SDT independent to the SRA, you're having a laugh

Well, what I would like to know is why a recent discussion on here about the SRA/SDT verdict into Mr Mireskandar's alleged offences and on this subject as a whole,was apparentlly closed down recently and all the comments removed..

Is it a case that the SBL and Mr Mireskander asked for the debate to be shut down or was this initiated by LSG concerned about senstivities of the case and Mr Mireskander's forthcoming legal action in the US courts?

I am always one for questioning attitudes in the legal profession. So far I am not convinced or indeed very impressed by the allegations made by SBL. Are all these attacks against SRA/SDT carried out in the media an attempt to stifle proper investigation into offences committed by Black and ethnic minority solicitors? Have there been any meaningful discussions or proper independent research as to why the SBL believe there is discrimination on racial grounds? Yes - we all know there are issues over transparency and the perception is that smaller firms tend to bear the brunt of investigations/sanctions while larger firms are perceived to get away with things. But is there really such a big problem regarding race which is not already being addressed by SRA/SDT? I am not so sure.

One question I have for the SBL. In view of the number of offences allegedly comitted by Mr Mireskander do you think it is appropriate to continue to support this offender and his apparently ludricrous action in the US? Or are all the charges against him and media stories over the years one big conspiracy?

As an observer and reader of the recent articles about this matter, I think the SBL is perhaps beginning to be become rather marginalised and militant - a bit like Arthur Scargill and his unions years ago. Just my thoughts.

Have a good day all and this time try to keep all your toys in your pram.

Collusion and bias have been obviously transparent from SDT own published decisions in the last 5 years.

Is it not most peculiar that when SDT discovered analysts were tracking the 99.9% bias the SDT with the consent of SRA stopped publishing their decisions (under pretext of spurious uncertainty in privacy law).

The Law Society and SDT face multi-billion pound claims from thousands of wrongly prosecuted Solicitors over the last 10 years.

The handful of key officials who have committed these serious offenses playing with the livelihood of so many people will shortly have to answer the music. As James Murdoch and Bob Diamond have found out "what is wrong is always wrong" and when you wrong people time after time you have to pay back eventually by serving time out yourself and confiscation of your ill gotten assets.

@kelly matthews.

The Society of Black Lawyers is all for discussion and debate. But our campaign and concerns about the way in which the SRA carries out its regulatory, investigation, prosecution and adjudication (RIPA) functions are entirely valid and have been raised by us following an investigation into specific cases that were referred to us. In some of those cases, we have found that SRA officers have at best, acted improperly and at the very worst, acted in breach of the Solicitors Act 1974 and outside of their powers.

Our concerns about the SDT are equally valid and have been expressed only after we sought clarification from the chief executive of the SDT on a number of equality, diversity and conduct issues that the SDT were unable to provide satisfactory answers to. You should be aware that the SBL is not alone in its criticisms of the SDT. In March 2011, Mrs Justice Davies criticised the SDT for its failure to publish guidance on the sanctions that it can impose. She found that the SDT had failed to take account of mitigating factors or to provide reasons for the financial penalty imposed, the amount of the fines or an explanation of how the sum was apportioned between the breaches. In her judgment, Mrs. Justice Davies stated that 'it is of note that the SDT has not published Indicative Sanctions Guidance. Such guidance identifies the purpose, parameters and range of sanctions. It permits those who appear before it to better understand proceedings and the thinking of the SDT. It assists the transparency of the proceedings.'

We are sure that you would not describe Mrs. Justice Davies of being a 'militant'! The fact is, the SBL is about challenging injustice wherever we encounter it. We have found that the white solicitors have also been the victims of SRA/SDT injustices and where we have been able to, we have provided them with support also. But ethnic minority solicitors have been disproportionately affected and that has been our starting point first and foremost. We firmly believe that every solicitor, irrespective of his or her race, religion etc is entitled to proper advice and representation. We have been appalled by the lack of adequate and timely advice and representation in this area. And we are equally concerned by the fact that solicitors are extremely frightened of challenging their regulator for fear of being targeted. These have been genuine concerns expressed to us. So we are hear to give a voice to those who believe that they have no voice - whether you agree with that or not.

In relation to the closure of the discussion about the SDT decision in the case of Dr. Mireskandari, we can categorically say that we had no part to play in that, so we suggest that you look elsewhere for an explanation.

In relation to your personal observation that the SBL is 'perhaps beginning to become rather marginalised and militant', let us make the position absolutely clear for you. Real change requires action and the willingness (and courage) for people to speak out. Without the media scrutiny that the SBL has brought to bear on the SRA (and now the SDT), the SRA would not have announced its 'race bias action plan'. It would not be undertaking a review of its cases if there was no merit in the concerns that the SBL has raised. In fact, we do not claim ownership of these concerns - they were being aired well before we got involved.

As for your suggestion that we are 'militant'. Well, if fighting for the rights of others and challenging injustice wherever we find it makes us militant then so be it. What we are not is complacent. Evil flourishes when good people do nothing and there have been alot of good people doing nothing about a regulatory body that has been trampling over the rights of a great many solicitors. You would not label organisations such as Liberty or Justice as militant and yet the tactics that they employ to influence decision-makers and instigate change are exactly the same as ours. What does that say about you?

Have a good day.

Given the historic bias and continued discrimination the Scottish and Irish came to the view that it was necessary to have their own Law Societies, own Regulators and own Disciplinary bodies to save themselves from extinction by ethnic cleansing. The EU has some 50 Law Societies.

If the English & Welsh Law Society refuses to reform to modern civilized thinking, refuses to change its name to English, Welsh and Minority Law Society, then it is time to set up a separate Law Society for Minorities.Perhaps with a Europe wide membership.

That way you know for sure that your subscription is not being being wasted on otherwise unemployable, substandard, overpaid, decadent bigots.

Ms Matthews either you are a staff of SRA or a WHITE sol., you are living in a cuckoo land.

May be you have special privileges from the SRA.

Maybe Mr Herbert or his colleagues can actually give us some hard evidence to back up their generalised claims.

Seeing as ALL SRA sanctions and SDT decisions are published, please can he/they give FULL CASE REFERENCES of each case they believe shows that a BME Solicitor has been treated unfairly harshly, so we can then all read the details of the case and make up our own minds...?

Visit SRAvictims dot com

I had a quick look at the 'SRA victims' website referred to. It wasn't persuasive.

I don't think it helps that one of the three 'victims' referred to is Dr Mireskandari. Perhaps the other two are more deserving of support.

These guys took millions of pounds ,kept no records and were let off with minor fines. What a Sham
Aron Emanuel Bude, Nathan Naftalie Iwanier and Vivian Naftali Vernick. Case No: 9978-2008-22nd September 2009 Dishonesty They misappropriated clients' funds, which for the avoidance of doubt was an allegation of dishonesty.The client to client transfers intended to be misleading. Made representations in letter(s) dated 8th March 2005 and/or 14th March 2005 addressed to the Bank of Scotland which had been misleading and/or inaccurate. In all the circumstances. The Respondent's conduct had been dishonest, alternatively reckless.
Prima facie Mortgage Fraud.Dubious loan to the firm and to spouses of the partners in the sum of £44,000.00
Cash shortage of £565,491.02 at the firm's financial year end,
No accounting system as most of the major transactions were never recorded in what was maintained

In the IWANIER case published report confirms :
By definition no reconciliation were ever done or really possible as “dubious client to client bank account” was never recorded or included. Clearly a year end difference existed cash shortage of £565,491.02

Solicitors utilised clients' funds for the benefit of other clients and for their own benefit

The sum of £307,229.45 had been transferred to the ledger of Mr F to cover a shortage that had occurred when the firm had completed, on behalf ofMr F, 10 days prior to receiving his mortgage advance.

On 21st April when Mr A's purchase had been completed, his ledger had been overdrawn by £469,533.70. The Second Respondent had said that the shortage on Mr A's ledger had been covered by funds held by another client

All I am asking is for the SDT case reference for any/all cases that the Society of Black Lawyers of believes is an example of an unfair penalty, so I and all the Gazette readers can access the Judgment(s) and make up our own minds.

Surely this is not an unreasonable request...?

I can not comment on the grammar, commas.etc., as my comments have been removed. May be you can become my proof reader.

Those cases I had posted were very relevant to show how the SDT /SRA have different rules for WHITES and different for BME.

Are you naive that these findings do not mean anything. Of course they prove everything.

Lenient DUH !!!!

How do you know Kelly Matthews is not staff at SRA?

It seems from all your responses in the articles you are on the side of the SRA. So even if we quote cases you are going to favour SRA/SDT.

Stephen Paul Allinson. Case No:10587-2010-19th October 2010

Dishonestly making
Fictitious expense claims
Fabricating documents
Altering documents to mislead.

Fine of £5,000. Costs of £12,000-Probably charged to an unsuspecting client in the next EXPENSE CLAIM?????

OR

May be SRA/SDT expense claims allow such practices.

I think that is a brilliant idea to have your own BME Law Society and then you do not have to listen to all these racist comments.

I think the CEO should be Mr Peter Herbert OBE and can show to the Law Society and SRA how competently Peter can run the organisation. No criminal activities, no corruption, no special clubs.etc.,

I have been observing comments on Mr Mireskandari how about the others mentioned by ceodesk like Iwanier, Bluett, Pleace, Allison, Rachael Taylor, etc., I can only see negative comments on the BME solicitor. Is it because the others mentioned are WHITE have special immunity. Or is it because Mr Mireskandari is a high profile solicitor and white solicitors and regulator can not stomach it.

Is it because Mr Mireskandri has brought an action in US for 36 million against the SRA for their criminal activities, like forging witness signatures, bribing witnesses.etc., Very serious offences by a regulator DON'T YOU THINK.

It is alright for the regulator to behave like a criminal in a foreign territory.

As ceodesk has quoted "Arthur -You find me a case where a BME Solicitor has been leniently treated like these white Solicitors".

Search all the Published SDT decisions if you like !!! It seems rather than searching for these decisions at SDT you are critising ceodesk who is RIGHT.

Please go to SRA/SDT about the cases being complaint about and they will tell you.

What does a list of so-called "white" solicitors prove?

It proves no more than the following list proves - i.e. nothing. But to make the point here is a list of solicitors whom I expect are BME, who did not get struck off the roll for their wrongdoings.

10783-2011 - B U Igbinedion - J - No accountants reports, received fine.

10618-2010 - B A Osibodu & K Atolagbe - Breaches of rules, suspicious transactions involving hallmarks of mortgage fraud, signing certificates of title incorrectly, received fine.

10617-2010 - Mohammed Aslam Kasujee - Breaches of rules, overcharging, failing to give proper client care, allowing himself to be instructed via a third party firm of accountants in order to allow the accountants to conduct the work, received fine.

10675-2010 - Peter Okulokhonse Ibhagbemien - Mortgage Fraud not being spotted, signing certificate of title incorrectly, suspended 1 year.

10837-2011 - Shahin Sultana Rahman - lied to her employer, took money a client gave for paying the firms bills, and kept it herself as a "loan", took money from clients to pay bills and failed to pay it to the firm, saying it was "on the file" (which has never been returned to the firm), failing to deal with cases or return calls, suspended 2 years.

SRA & SDT are linked because people like Mrs Todner, Mr Barnecutt and other solicitors who chair the panel are solicitors who work in a practice or are partners. These firms are regulated by guess who?

The SRA!!!

If they voice against the SRA they have fear of being intervened or punished for voicing against their regulator.

The second reason why they are linked is because the same Forensic Investigation Report(FIR) is used by the SDT which is prepared for the SRA during an intervention. It is the SRA staff, that is, preparing the FIR. It is the adjudication panel that refers the intervened solicitor to the SDT. Panel working for the SRA.

The SRA is the prosecutor at the SDT.

Mr Middleton admitted on tape that SDT rubber stamp what SRA tells them to do.

It is all one organisation and SDT is just a sham where they rubber stamp SRA's decision.

That is why white solicitors have special immunity.

Sole Ps and small firms do sometimes suffer disproportionately at the SDT. I think this can often be because this is the end of a very stressful and lengthy investigation and by the time of the hearing people have had enough and are ready to accept the coup de grace. There is a lack of equality of arms that an organisation like Peter Herbert's could do a lot to redress, if they are willing to assist and represent small firms.

This might not be a popular view but there is no racial bias at the SRA. If it was there Ouseley would have found it. But I hope that the SBL do manage to have a constructive dialogue with the SRA about the regulation of BME firms for all that - I'm sure it can be improved.

But they will need to avoid the hysterical tone and finger-jabbing of some of their so-called supporters on here who obviously have their own very large axes to grind.

Dear Anon@15:56

The list was of BME solicitors who had NOT been dealt with severely! They received small fines or suspensions!

The last one - Shahin Rahman - basically stole money that belonged to her employer. She received a two year suspension with a recommendation that if she returns to practice as an employee that she be required to do an accounts course! And she never even bothered to turn up to the tribunal!

Hardly big bad racist SDT is it?

To be honest I am not really convinced by what I have read by those who allege racism. It is not enough to say SRA/SDT failed to be transparent or have been criticised for the way sanctions are decided or imposed. Nor is it enough to list a few cases of black and ethnic minority solicitors where the sanctions have been harsh as I could name numerous examples of white solicitors where the same has happened.

And unfortunately SBL seem to have a very serious credibility issue in supporting Mr Mireskander.

My advice to SBL: Drop Mireskander and then come back and talk. In my opinion this man is likely to undermine your credibility further. Hardball tactics and militancy or whatever you wish to call it can be effective in all campaigns - but only if it is replaced by pragmatism and diplomacy.

Having seen the SDT in action, I can confirm DomCoop's comment that the SDT's natural inclination seems to be to attach considerable weight to what is said on behalf of the SRA, usually by counsel who are regularly in front of them, and to attach less weight to what is said on behalf of the respondents. In other words, the SRA and its advocates have the ear of the tribunal, in a way which the respondents and their advocates may not. The SRA is in the SDT every working day; most solicitors (and counsel) will never appear before it, whether as lawyers or as respondents.

It should not be overlooked that many of the allegations which the SDT are of a kind which can very clearly be proved or disproved: for example, mistreatment of client monies either occurred or it did not. In such cases, the colour of the respondent cannot sensibly have any influence upon the SDT's finding; whether it has any effect upon the penalty is a more interesting question.

On that issue, one area where the SDT is open to obvious criticism is that, despite the passage of almost 18 months, it has not addressed the point made by the High Court in Hazelhurst v SRA [2011] EWHC 462 (Admin): that is, it has not published indicative sanctions guidance.

To DomCoop, Arthur and Interested Observer, I am doing some reseacher for a documentery, would you be interested in participating, especially as you have a very alternative opinion to what is going on?

Dear All,

I would be very interested in hearing from individuals who have been unjustly treated by the SRA/SDT for a documentary I am working on.

Regards

Dear Sir/Madam

Please look at "Breaking the Silence" it reveals the material you are looking for your documentary.

Have you heard of Baxendale Transcripts which reveals the conspiracy going on between SRA & the SDT.

Having read all of this and filtered out some if the hysterics, I'm still at a loss as to why more SDT decisions aren't being appealed and disupted in the courts, if there are genuine concerns of racism and unfair sanctions for BME solicitors.

The problem with the "Breaking the Silence" report is that it contains only brief, anonymised case studies, some of which contain material (for example, that a solicitor had spotted a mortgage fraud in the past) which has no relevance to the question whether the SRA's/SDT's actions were justified. Most of the complaints which arise from those case studies could just as well be made by white solicitors.

One of the points made in Breaking the Silence is that there is an inequality of arms between the SRA and the solicitor. This is true in relation to solicitors of any ethnicity. It is the result of the SRA dropping (from the Minimum Terms and Conditions of insurance) the requirement that Qualifying Insurers provide defence costs cover for proceedings before the SDT. There is also the major problem of solicitors (again, of any ethnicity) not being awarded their costs even when they defeat an allegation made before the SDT: see Baxendale-Walker Law Society [2007] EWCA Civ 233.