22 IN PRACTICE
www.lawgazette.co.uk
Decisions and interventions SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL AND SRA
Continued from page 21 Majed Iqbal
• Application 11191-2013 • Admitted 2010
Lesley Eleanor Almond • Application 11154-2013
• Admitted 1984
• Hearing 27 March 2014 • Reasons 14 May 2014
The SDT ordered that the respondent should be prohibited from having his name restored to the roll except by order of the SDT. The respondent had been convicted on 20 December 2012 of conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice, contrary to all, alterna- tively any, of principles 1, 2 and/or 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. The respondent had self-reported
his conduct to the applicant in June 2012. The present case was rather unusual as the applicant had already removed the respondent from the roll of solicitors administratively. There had been procedural issues which had occurred when the investigation file was closed at the same time as an exercise was conducted by the appli- cant to remove solicitors from the roll who had not renewed their practising certificates. The applicant apologised profusely to the SDT for the error and assured it that it would not happen again. The respondent had been convicted
of conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice. The matter involved payments of money to witnesses in return for their non-cooperation in the ongoing prosecution of the respondent’s client. The respondent had made five trips abroad to carry out bribes. He had been found to have drafted witness statements in which witnesses confirmed they no longer had any interest in supporting the prosecution. Those were extremely serious mat-
ters for a solicitor. The SDT’s atten- tion had been drawn to press articles reporting the respondent’s convic- tion. It was clear to the SDT that he had caused a great deal of damage to the reputation of the solicitors’ pro- fession. The respondent had acted with a complete lack of integrity and he had abused the trust placed in him as a member of the solicitors’ profes- sion. As the respondent had already been removed from the roll, the SDT was satisfied that the only order avail- able to it was a direction pursuant to section 47(2)(g) of the Solicitors Act 1974 prohibiting the restoration of his name to the roll except by order of the SDT. The respondent was ordered to pay
costs of £2,000, not to be enforced without leave of the SDT.
• Hearing 25 March 2014 • Reasons 12 May 2014
The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for three years from 25 March 2014. In acting for her client in ancillary divorce proceedings, the respondent had signed a consent order purporting to be the petitioner in breach of prin- ciples 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 and had failed to achieve out- come 1.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011, alternatively she had breached rules 1.2 and 1.6 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007. The respondent had misled the court in that she had sent a letter enclosing a consent order pur- portedly agreed by both parties for endorsement in breach of principles 1, 2 and 6 of the 2011 principles and had failed to achieve outcome 5.1 of the 2011 code. By signing a consent order without the knowledge or authority of an unrepresented petitioner, the respondent had taken advantage of a non-client, thereby breaching prin- ciples 1, 2 and 6 of the 2011 principles and had failed to achieve outcome 10.1 of the 2011 code. The SDT had considered the
aggravating and mitigating factors in the case. Dishonesty had not been proved and the SDT had found that the respondent’s conduct had not been deliberate or calculated, due to her medical condition. The inci- dent had been a one-off aberration and the respondent had immediately informed her employers about the sit- uation, having realised what she had done in February 2012. She had shown genuine insight from the outset, had been extremely remorseful, and had made open and frank admissions at an early stage. The SDT also took into account the respondent’s difficult personal circumstances that had led to her medical condition which had ultimately caused her to behave in the way that she had. Although the SDT was satisfied that the seriousness of the misconduct in the case was so high that a striking off could be considered, it was also satisfied that the protection of the public and of the reputation of the profession did not require that the respondent be struck off the roll. The respondent was unlikely to act in such a manner again, providing that she was properly treated for her medical condition. A fixed-term of suspension of three years would be sufficient both to punish the respondent and to deter,
while being proportionate to the seri- ousness of her misconduct. The respondent was ordered to pay
costs of £6,825. Ranbir Singh Bains
• Application 10775-2011 • Admitted 1986
ate order was that the respondent should be struck off the roll. The respondent was ordered to pay
costs of £50,479, not to be enforced without the permission of the SDT.
Aurangzeb Iqbal
• Hearing 19, 20 March 2014 • Reasons 7 May 2014
The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll. The respondent had been grossly reckless in withdrawing monies from client account in respect of four cli- ents that exceeded the funds held for those clients, in breach of rule 22(5) of the Solicitors Account Rules 1998, giving rise to a shortage on client account; and he had dishonestly and improperly utilised client monies for the purposes of other clients in breach of rule 30 of of the 1998 rules. The SDT found that the respondent’s
conduct of his client account had been improper and chaotic for a period of about 18 months. A minimum short- fall of nearly £600,000 existed as at 31 December 2010. They were extremely serious matters, which had put his clients’ money at risk. It was sad that after 27 years in practice the respon- dent had reached that position. His career had been successful until the events in question. He had acted for four particular clients on whom he had relied, believing them to be pillars of the community, and had been let down by them. However, a solicitor should not use money belonging to other cli- ents to support a particular client. There had been a finding of dishon-
esty, in relation to the respondent’s transfers of money from the accounts of Mr D and Mr A and utilisation of that money for the benefit of an unre- lated client. The SDT did not find there were any exceptional circumstances to preclude a striking off order. The dishonest acts had taken place over a period of about four months, and the improper transfers had not been substantially repaid for about seven months. While there might have been no particular benefit to the respon- dent, there had been a significant adverse effect on the estates of Mr D and Mr A, both of which had been put at substantial risk; the beneficiaries could have lost most if not all of their inheritances. Further, the dishonest acts had taken place in the context of generally improper handling of client account which, while not found to be dishonest, was probably sufficiently serious to justify striking off in itself. The only appropriate and proportion-
• Application 11220-2014 • Admitted 1990
• Hearing 31 March 2014 • Reasons 19 May 2014
The SDT ordered that the applicant’s application for restoration to the roll should be refused. The applicant had been struck off
the roll in 2004, after he had been suspended by an earlier SDT in 1998 and subsequent conditions had been imposed on his practising certificate. Although the applicant had worked for two days a week from 25 March 2013 to 27 February 2014 with a firm of solicitors as a paralegal, his duties were general basic administrative duties. Furthermore, that employ- ment had ended on 27 February 2014 so he was not currently working in the legal profession. He had produced no evidence at all of any continuing professional development. He had not practised since 2004 and over the years there had been many changes to the Solicitors Code of Conduct, the Solicitors Accounts Rules and to vari- ous procedures and legislation. There was no evidence that the applicant was aware of any of those develop- ments. There were still outstanding costs from previous disciplinary hear- ings which had not been paid, as well as substantial losses to the Compen- sation Fund. The SDT was mindful that the alle-
gations proved against the applicant which had led to his being struck off in 2004, while not including any allegation of dishonesty, had never- theless been very serious and indeed had related to the applicant seeking to circumvent the practising conditions imposed upon him by an earlier SDT. His conduct at that time had not been a momentary lapse. The SDT took into account two
references dated 2014 and noted that one was from a potential employer. It took the view that that potential employer could still offer the appli- cant work as a paralegal with the SRA’s approval regardless of the outcome of the present application. The SDT was particularly mindful of the cases giv- ing guidance on applications for res- toration to the roll. It concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the very stringent criteria for an application for restoration to the roll to be successful.
23 June 2014
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36