Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice for 12 months from 27 June 2023.

While a partner at DLA Piper and while practising as a solicitor, the respondent had, during an ongoing property transaction, inserted a signature to a legal charge document on behalf of a witness without their knowledge or consent, and had forwarded that to solicitors acting for the lending bank, purporting to demonstrate that the legal charge document had been signed by the witness when it had not, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019.

The parties invited the SDT to dispose of the matter as set out in a statement of agreed facts and outcome.

The respondent had admitted all the allegations including the breach of principle 4. The parties agreed that exceptional circumstances applied such that he should not be struck off the roll. The proposed sanction was a suspension of 12 months, but the parties differed as to the start date of the suspension. The SRA invited the SDT to impose the suspension from the date of approval of the agreed outcome, while the respondent invited it to backdate the commencement of the suspension to 1 February 2023.

The SDT noted that the usual sanction where misconduct included dishonesty would be a strike-off, save in exceptional circumstances.

The SDT accepted the submission that the misconduct was momentary, unplanned and it had not benefited the respondent personally. Moreover, the medical evidence indicated that the respondent’s decision-making was likely to have been impaired at the time of his actions. The respondent had brought the matter to the SRA’s attention almost immediately and had practised without any issues since. No harm had been caused, albeit there had been a risk of harm. The respondent had likely been overloaded with work (as accepted by his employer) and although it was his responsibility to have raised that fact, it was nevertheless a relevant factor in the misconduct.

The submission as to exceptional circumstances was endorsed by the SRA. The SDT welcomed a more flexible approach being taken in cases such as this, particularly where medical evidence was available.

The SDT was satisfied that exceptional circumstances were present in the case and that a sanction other than strike-off could be applied. Twelve months was an appropriate length of suspension as it sent a message that this type of conduct was very serious and was unacceptable.

The usual practice when imposing a suspension was to order that it took effect immediately. The SDT was not satisfied that there were good reasons to depart from its usual procedures and accordingly it ordered that the suspension should take effect immediately.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £17,250.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll.

The respondent had, while in practice as a solicitor, for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification, intentionally attempted sexual communication with a child under 16, and had thereby breached principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

The SRA relied on the respondent’s conviction of one count of attempted sexual communication with a child under 16, contrary to section 15A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, as evidence that he was guilty of that offence and relied upon the findings of fact upon which that conviction was based as proof of those facts.

The respondent had engaged in sexual communication with a person online who had identified themselves as ‘Josh’, a 13-year-old boy. In fact, that person was an undercover police officer, hence why the offence had been charged as an attempt.

In November 2021, the respondent had been sentenced to a two-year community order with 35 sessions of Horizon programme, and 35 RAR (rehabilitation activity requirement) days, and he was also made subject to the mandatory notification requirements for five years.

The respondent’s motive was self-interest and sexual gratification. His culpability was very high.

There was no evidence of direct harm to ‘Josh’ as that had been a creation of a police officer. However, the consequential damage to the reputation of the profession by the respondent’s misconduct was significant.

The misconduct had been deliberate and calculated, and it had occurred over a 90-minute period. That could not be described a moment of madness. It was, however, a one-off incident and it had not been repeated in the years following its commission. The respondent had self-reported his conviction to the regulator and he had co-operated with its investigation.

The seriousness of the misconduct was extremely high. It was a stark case wherein an adult had pursued a highly sexualised conversation with a person who said he was 13.

Notwithstanding strong personal mitigation, that was misconduct at the highest level and no sanction other than strike-off would be sufficient to the protect the reputation of the profession in such circumstances.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £7,350.

The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 1979) should be suspended from practice for 18 months from 25 May 2023; and that the second respondent (admitted 1976) should be suspended from practice for six months from 25 May 2023.

The first and second respondents had committed multiple breaches of the Accounts Rules over a period of many years. They had admitted all the allegations. The first respondent’s admissions included lack of integrity and manifest incompetence. The second respondent’s admissions included manifest incompetence. The SDT had found all allegations proved and had assessed the first respondent as the more culpable on account of his roles as COLP and COFA at the firm.

The first respondent held the roles of COLP and COFA, which placed particular responsibilities on him to ensure compliance with the relevant rules. The SDT had concluded that his motivation was the financial survival of the firm and it had noted that he had made a deliberate decision, albeit in desperate circumstances, not to obtain an accountant’s report. There was therefore an element of planning. The SDT further noted that he had sought to influence the second respondent to an extent.

Taking all those factors into account, the appropriate sanction for the first respondent was a suspension from practice of 18 months.

The second respondent had allowed herself to be persuaded by the first respondent in relation to the accountant’s report. She had not lacked integrity but had been manifestly incompetent. The second respondent’s culpability was therefore less than the first respondent’s. In the light of that reduced culpability and the absence of a lack of integrity, the appropriate length of her suspension was six months.

No order as to costs was made in respect of either respondent. It was clear to the SDT, having reviewed the statement of means provided by each respondent, that once the firm had been fully wound up, there would be no money left over.

On 30 July 2023 an adjudicator resolved to intervene into Kingswright Solicitors Limited and into the practice of Muhammad Azfar Ahmad at the firm.

The firm was based at Unit 3, 89-90 Meriden Street, Birmingham B5 5LR. The firm also had a branch office at Fitzroy House, Lynwood Drive, Surrey KT4 7AT. The first date of attendance was 31 July 2023.

The grounds for intervention into Ahmad were:

• Reason to suspect dishonesty on Ahmad’s part in connection with his practice as a solicitor (paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of Schedule 1 – Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974).

The grounds for intervention into Kingswright Solicitors Limited were:

• Reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Ahmad, as a manager of the firm, in connection with the firm’s business (paragraph 32(1)(d) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985).

Sean Joyce of Stephensons, Wigan Investment Centre, Waterside Drive, Wigan WN3 5BA; tel: 0333 321 4406; email: interventions@stephensons.co.uk; has been appointed to act as the Society’s agent.

Ahmad’s practising certificate is suspended as a result of the intervention decision.

On 21 July 2023 a single adjudicator resolved to intervene into the remnants of rhw Solicitors LLP based at Parallel House, 32 London Road, Guildford GU1 2AB.

The grounds of intervention were:

• It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of former clients of the firm (section 1 paragraph (2)(f) of Schedule 14 to the Legal Services Act 2007).

No agent has been appointed.

On 30 July 2023 a single adjudicator resolved to intervene into the practice of Mohammad Nazar Hayat, and into Lincoln Lawrence Solicitors Limited, which was based at First floor, 686-692 London Road, Hounslow TW3 1PG. The first date of attendance was 31 July 2023.

The grounds of intervention were:

• To intervene into the practice of Hayat on the following grounds: (i) there was reason to suspect dishonesty by Hayat in connection with his practice as a solicitor (paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of Schedule 1 – Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974); (ii) Hayat had failed to comply with rules (paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 – Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974).
• To intervene into the firm on the following grounds: (i) there was reason to suspect dishonesty by Hayat, as a manager of the firm, in connection with the firm’s business (paragraph 32(1)(d)(i) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985); (ii) Hayat, as a manager of the firm and the firm itself, had failed to comply with the SRA Principles 2011 and 2019 which are rules applicable to them both by virtue of section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (paragraph 32(1)(a) of Schedule 2 of that Act).

Chris Evans of Lester Aldridge LLP, Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth BH8 8EX;  email: Intervention.Enquiries@LA-Law.com; has been appointed to act as the Society’s agent.