A solicitor cleared of dishonesty by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has estimated that the case will cost her more than £60,000 in legal fees and lost business. Maya Nisa-Zaman, who was exonerated following a two-day hearing last month, revealed that her defence costs are likely to be around £43,000, with further losses likely because of the new work she has had to turn away this year. Her firm was not insured.

Nisa-Zaman had been accused by the Solicitors Regulation Authority of dishonesty over her declaration of a mandatory anti-money laundering risk assessment. She insisted that a compliant risk assessment had been in place at all times. The tribunal dismissed all allegations.

The solicitor, who owns Birmingham firm MZ Law Solicitors, says the two-year investigation has put her in debt.

The Court of Appeal’s 2007 decision in Baxendale-Walker established that unless an SRA complaint is improperly brought, successful respondents are unlikely to recover their defence costs. The convention allows the SRA to prosecute without fear of adverse costs bills – but it also means that successful respondents have little recourse for claiming back any costs they have incurred.

‘Even though we won we won’t see those costs back at all which I think is grossly unfair,’ Nisa-Zaman told the Gazette. ‘The SRA investigation into my practice since summer 2020 has been a total nightmare for me. Facing allegations of dishonesty since November 2021 has really affected my health, the thought of being struck off and having to close my practice that I have worked so hard for was devastating.’

Nisa-Zaman added: ‘I want other solicitors to know that the SRA do get it wrong and to seek help. My amazing legal team Mohammed Afzal of HMA Law and Rory Dunlop KC of 39 Essex Chambers were integral to my successful outcome. I will be forever grateful to them for saving my livelihood.’

The tribunal dismissed all the allegations on the basis that the SRA had not proved its case on the balance of probabilities, and that it was more than likely she had in place a compliant risk assessment, even if she could not immediately produce it.

Evidence showed she had thought about the risks presented by money laundering and had processes in place to counter such risks. While questions might be asked of the firm’s organisation and storage of important documents, the tribunal found that Nisa-Zaman’s explanation was credible, adding that she was ‘clearly a busy solicitor who was highly regarded by her peers’, with an exemplary record.

The case highlights concerns among many in the profession about the regulatory burden on small firms and the regulator’s willingness to prosecute.

Peter Felton, a sole practitioner from Kent, told the Gazette he had been the subject of three visits by an SRA investigator which concluded today with a two-hour recorded interview, again in relation to an AML declaration.

‘As a sole practitioner, I have a money-laundering policy between my ears,’ said Felton. ‘I readily accept that I was not aware of the requirement as a sole practitioner to have a written policy and I also ticked the box in the genuine belief that I had such a policy in place.

‘I am extremely concerned as to what any report is going to say about me and what steps may be taken further. I was not dishonest when completing my application for insurance. All of this causes me firstly aggravation and secondly concern as to what exactly the SRA are doing in attacking small firms for very minor infractions.’

The SRA has been approached for comment. The SDT’s decision on Nisa-Zaman is open to appeal for 21 days after publication.

 

This article is now closed for comment.

Topics