A former solicitor who has been embroiled in a long-running legal fight with the Solicitors Regulation Authority over undisclosed documents has been made subject to an extended civil restraint order (ECRO).
Soophia Khan appeared at the High Court before Mr Justice Lavender who heard submissions on whether a civil restraint order would be appopriate.
Khan was struck off for dishonesty after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found she had settled her former clients’ damages and costs claims without telling them. She was jailed for contempt of court for breaching High Court orders requiring her to give client files to the SRA. A judge previously said her explaination as to why she didn’t deliver up the files was ‘inadequate’.
Following the morning submissions of the most recent hearing between Khan and the SRA, Lavender ordered an ECRO against Khan which will cover any matter relating to ‘her dealings’ with the SRA to date. It means that Khan, who currently has three matters before the Court of Appeal, must obtain permission to make a claim or application for a period of three years.
The court heard that judges have previously deemed at least two claims totally without merit and one ground of her appeal was also found as totally without merit.
Mr Justice Lavender said: ‘A lot of this litigation would be unnecessary if Miss Khan simply did what she was supposed to do in the first place. The SRA would not need to apply for injunctions…and apply for committal if she complied with the injunctions.’
Mark James, for Khan, said: ‘It is in the SRA’s hands when this comes to an end. If the SRA are giving applications for further injunctions and other applications for contempt, that is the SRA and not Miss Khan.’
He told the court that Khan’s case was not one for an extended restraint order and she had been sentenced to six months imprisonment and also been given a 12-month prison sentence for contempt of court that is currently stayed while permission to appeal is sought.
James added: ‘If you get to that stage, My Lord and that still does not satisfy the SRA, she will be looking at sentences of 12 months, it will be persistent. She is not the one bringing litigation, it is the SRA bringing it.’
Philip Ahlquist, for the SRA, described Khan’s arguments as ones which ‘once scrutinised, go nowhere’ and described Khan’s previous litigation as ‘untenable and unsustainable’.
Reading out his judgment, the judge said: ‘Miss Khan had twice been found in contempt of court for disobeying court orders. The ongoing litigation between Miss Khan and the SRA currently consists of three applications, permission to appeal against first committal order, the second comittal order and my order of the 18th May 2023.
‘There remain issues as to production of documents which may lead to further applications by the SRA against Miss Khan.
‘There have been four applications [by Khan] in two years which have been found totally without merit…it demonstrates the necessary degree of persistence.’
He told the court the ECRO would protect the court from ‘future waste of time and resources’.
Lavender added: ‘It will act only as a filter. Permission under the order can be dealt with quickly if necessary. An extended civil restraint order is appropriate. An order lasting three years is required considering Miss Khan’s long disputes with the SRA.’
An order for costs was also made in the sum of £6,500.
