The reason behind the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s decision to pursue former solicitor Soophia Khan for documents relating to closed cases was called into question during a two-day committal hearing this week.
Soophia Khan, who was struck off in August last year, appeared at Rolls Building for a committal hearing where she is accused of contempt of court. The case is the latest in a long legal battle between the regulator and Khan over documents the SRA says have not been handed over during an intervention into Khan’s former firm. Khan claims says she no longer has any listed items in her possession because they have been returned to clients or destroyed.
Philip Ahlquist, for the SRA, told the court Khan had a ‘convenient new explanation [why listed items were not able to be returned] that is not credible, when one looks at the number of these explanations being given without any corroboration.’
He said that although Khan had said matters were concluded, in one matter a costs assessment was ongoing and it was unlikely she would have destroyed ‘the entirety of her client’s files’ in the middle of the process. He added: ‘Is that something an experienced solicitor would actually do? We say it is not credible.’
He added: ‘One or two may be mistakes but together, it is more sinister than that. It can be satisfied to the necessary standards, this is deliberately dishonest evidence.’
Ahlquist also highlighted tweets from Khan. He said: ‘It reflected her position, she had done the right thing in continuing to resist the SRA attempting to seize her client file in the interest of her clients and [it was] the right thing to do to defy the order as her clients wish her to do.’
James Bogle, for Khan, said: ‘[Khan] is doing the best she could, she has responded as best as she could. She has found the burden of proof has shifted more or less onto her.’
Bogle told the court that, apart from two documents, the SRA had seen all other documentation it requested from Khan as a result of prior proceedings.
He said: ‘In this case, the clients’ cases have all concluded. All those cases, it is common ground, have concluded. There is nothing more to be done, no deadlines to be met. There is no prejudice to be suffered…what does seeking [documents] achieve? Even if the defendant did hold any list of items, where does it go for protection of the client?’
Bogle said that the SRA’s case against Khan was ‘only punitive.’ He added that the SRA’s ‘fresh application for a fresh order’ was ‘in effect punishment for something the defendant has already been punished for.’
He asked: ‘What purpose would it serve?’
Reserving judgment, Mr Justice Leech said it was important to ‘consider carefully’ all the evidence before him.
