WhatsApp: Solicitor had short call with client
A solicitor has been cleared of misconduct when acting on the exchange of contracts for an elderly client’s property – which included a requirement to complete – on the same day he was instructed.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found no regulatory requirement obliging Mohammed Israr to make additional enquiries beyond the scope of his retainer, nor to test the client’s understanding of each document in detail given there were no signs of mental incapacity.
As a result, allegations that he failed to act in his client’s best interests were dismissed.
Mr Israr, who qualified in 2019, was a consultant at Birmingham firm Lawrence Kurt on 6 December 2022, when he was instructed by 81-year-old ‘Client A’ on the sale of a house he had lived in since 1966.
Client A had contacted the buyer, KPM Properties, in response to a newspaper advertisement which said it bought houses for cash. KPM’s lawyers, Cambridge Solicitors, recommended Lawrence Kurt to Client A for a quick sale.
KPM’s agent delivered the documents required by the firm to Mr Israr later in the day, including forms of identity, proof of address and a bank statement, along with the signed instruction and client-care documentation.
Client A had instructed that exchange take place immediately upon the return of the client-care letter. The sale price was £40,000, with no deposit payable on exchange, and completion due within 28 days, extendable by a further 28 days.
During the day, Mr Israr had a short WhatsApp video call with Client A to verify him and check key elements of the transaction; Client A told him he was unable to refinance at the end of his mortgage deal and so needed to sell quickly to avoid repossession.
In late January 2023, with the transaction yet to complete, Client A’s daughter, ‘Person B’, became aware of what her father had done and contacted the solicitor to express her deep concerns about the sale.
On the same day, the buyer’s solicitors, Trowers & Hamlins, said they were ready to complete and the funds were on their way. Mr Israr replied that the transaction was off.
Nearly two months later, Trowers sent Client A a letter of claim, including a notice to complete within 10 working days.
Soon after, Client A met with another solicitor, Stephen Roberts of Bird Wilford & Sale, who was concerned that Client A had not had the capacity to undertake the transaction. A “mini” mental health assessment did not back this up, however.
In a letter to Trowers & Hamlins, Mr Roberts said the true value of the property was around £170,000, that Client A had no reason to sell, and that the sale would have made him homeless.
Though arrangements were being made for Client A to undergo a full mental capacity assessment, Client A died before this could happen.
The SRA alleged that Mr Israr failed to act in his client’s best interests in various ways, but the SDT rejected them.
“In the tribunal’s view, this was a sad case which shone a light on the practice of residential houses being sold quickly at an undervalue for a cash sum.
“The tribunal was troubled by this practice which involves contracts being exchanged quickly meaning that both buyers and sellers are bound from an early stage in the process in contrast with the usual course of a conveyancing transaction.
“However, this remains a legitimate business practice at the current time.”
On 6 December, Mr Israr had not seen the mortgage documents and so did not have the information to question Client A’s financial position and stated motivation for a quick sale.
“The tribunal did not consider this case to be one which involved a solicitor taking advantage of a vulnerable client. This client, whilst he was an elderly gentleman, living alone, did not cause the respondent at the time of his transaction to doubt that he had capacity to give instructions to his solicitor.
“He was clear in those instructions: he wanted to sell his home at a low price which had been agreed directly and independently with a third-party buyer, as quickly as possible. He knew that this meant he would have to find somewhere to live and said to the respondent that he would ‘… sort this’.”
It was not in dispute that the sale was at an undervalue but the tribunal said it was not able to judge whether the client was wrong about his situation.
While a more experienced solicitor “might have made additional enquiries of the client”, the SDT said there was no regulatory requirement obliging Mr Israr to make additional enquiries beyond the scope of his retainer, “nor to test the client’s understanding of each document in detail, especially where there were no indicators of confusion, vulnerability, or lack of capacity on the part of the client”.
Person B was acting in what she considered to be her father’s best interests, but “her interests were not necessarily aligned with those of her father”.
The SDT found Mr Israr to be “a credible witness who believed, at the material time, that he was doing his best for his client” – as a relatively junior solicitor though, he “may have benefited from more robust supervision”.
The duty to act in a client’s best interests “has to be judged in the context of the scope of a solicitor’s retainer and does not necessarily require a solicitor to second-guess the clear instructions of a client who has mental capacity and gives no indication of confusion or vulnerability”.
The SDT dismissed the allegations. The parties agreed there should be no order as to costs.
In 2023, the SRA fined Mr Israr £12,000 for acting for both sides in the transfer of five properties for nil value without the knowledge of the transferors.
Valerie Cheryl Irving 
In my opinion this is very wrong and unethical . The conveyancer and his or her team earn a large few for doing next to nothing. How many other clients are taken advantage off. This gent mist probably was getting his head around the fact his house was being sold. Where did he go. . This is bad practice . Not cricket