A solicitor who proposed a ‘benefit fraud’ scheme to his client to conceal money awarded in a judgment, including creating ‘sham documents’, has been struck off.
Altaf Husen Bhurawala, admitted in 1993, was found by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to have been dishonest.
Bhurawala’s client, identified only as MS, instructed the firm in a claim against his landlord who had evicted him. He was awarded £33,000 but the sum could not be paid at that time. Later, a revised statement said the award amounted to around £106,000, including interest.
MS was receiving means-tested benefits at the time. The client recorded conversations between himself and Bhurawala, transcripts of which were published in the 27-page judgment.
The panel found Bhurawala, sole director and shareholder of Ilford firm Morgan Hall Solicitors, suggested he would give MS £16,000, the limit above which MS would no longer be entitled to receive means-tested benefits, and would pay ‘some money to MS’s family as well as taking out "my bit"’.
The SDT said: ‘There was no legitimate reason for Mr Bhurawala to receive money into the firm and then to provide it to MS in cash, after taking out "his bit". It was clear that the purpose of doing so was to carry the scheme into effect i.e., to make it appear that MS had not received a sum that would mean he was no longer entitled to means-tested benefits.
‘In order to lend credence to the scheme, Mr Bhurawala caused documents to be created upon which he did not intend to rely. There was no necessity for a CFA in circumstances where the issues had already been litigated and MS had a judgment in his favour. The only outstanding issue was for MS to receive the monies due to him pursuant to the judgment.’
Bhurawala was also found to have permitted the firm to retain £86,308.83 of client EN’s money in the firm’s client account from January 2013, when the matter was ‘substantially complete’, until October 2018. He was also have found to have taken ‘unfair advantage of a third party for the solicitor's own financial benefit’ in relation to a loan.
Striking Bhurawala off, the SDT said his conduct had caused ‘immense harm to the profession’. It added: ‘Members of the public did not expect solicitors to suggest illegal schemes to their clients. Nor did they expect solicitors to neglect providing proper advice so that they could derive a personal financial benefit. Such harm, the tribunal found, was wholly foreseeable.’
Bhurawala was ordered to pay £31,180 in costs.
