A solicitor who left confidential files unattended while he abandoned his office has been struck off the roll. The Solicitors Regulation Authority intervened into east London firm Universal Solicitors in 2022 after the building’s landlord had got in contact to say owner Toslim Ahmed had disappeared.
A large number of files were found showing service complaints and clients being invoiced without any evidence that work had been completed.
Ahmed returned one phone call from the SRA’s investigation officer but otherwise ignored attempts to contact him and played no part in disciplinary proceedings, giving no explanation for his conduct other than to say he should have shut at least 10 years earlier.
In his absence, the SRA told the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal that Ahmed had been sole owner and compliance officer of the firm from 2005 and mainly practised immigration law. The firm posted £72,580 turnover in its last full year.
Solicitors acting for the building’s landlord contacted the regulator in 2022 to say the office had been abandoned with Ahmed owing £22,400 in rent.
It was reported that clients had been spotted crying outside the office saying they had paid Ahmed £500 and nothing had been done on their matter. Letters to the firm had piled up to such an extent that they were filling the corridor and creating a fire hazard.
Intervention agents lifted 1,374 files from the premises and these were found to have been lying unsecured in the unoccupied office for at least five months.
Ahmed failed to take any steps to store files securely or keep them confidential and did not tell any clients he was abandoning his practice.
The tribunal said that in abandoning the firm there had been a ‘clear breach of a position of trust’.
‘By the very nature of the matters, he had been dealing with clients who had been vulnerable and dependent on his expertise and professionalism,’ added the tribunal. ‘No solicitor, let alone one with the respondent’s level of experience, would abandon their practice and leave it in such a chaotic state.
‘The respondent’s conduct demonstrated a lack of care for anyone affected by the closure, principally his clients who were seemingly left high and dry.’
Ahmed was struck off and ordered to pay £21,000 costs.
