“Dishonest” ABS owner banned for multiple breaches


SRA: Rarely used power

A non-lawyer owner of an alternative business structure (ABS) responsible for multiple rule breaches – including a £3.6m shortfall on his firm’s client account – has been banned from working in another one.

A finding of dishonesty was made against Mohammed Yasin and he was made subject to a disqualification order under the Legal Services Act 2007 that prevents him from owning or working for another ABS.

As Ipswich firm Mayland Porter is an ABS, a different and to date rarely used statutory regime applies to that the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) uses for traditional firms.

According to a decision published yesterday by the SRA, Mr Yasin made improper payments from the firm’s client account which led to a minimum identified cash shortage of £3.6m as at 31 August 2017, money that was not replaced “promptly or at all”.

He also allowed Mayland Porter – which according to the SRA is in the process of closing down – to become involved in conveyancing transactions “which bore the hallmarks of fraud”.

Other breaches were that Mr Yasin:

  • Allowed false and misleading documentation, including correspondence and undertakings, to be provided to solicitors for other parties in conveyancing matters;
  • Transferred client money to third parties without authority or instructions from the relevant clients. On one matter, he transferred client money to a bank account in his personal name, without the client’s authority or instructions;
  • Failed to carry out adequate enquiry in relation to the identity, employment history and practising status of an employee.
  • Failed to exercise appropriate supervision over the firm’s London office and the staff who were working there;
  • Failed to notify serious misconduct at the firm to the SRA and to co-operate with the SRA in its inspection of the firm.
  • Failed to manage an orderly closure of the firm and to engage with the firm’s professional indemnity insurer.

This breached no fewer than five of the SRA principles.




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog


The future may be blended

Attitudes to technology in access to justice might beneficially follow the trajectory of the earlier debate about the best way to deliver legal aid services.


A whole-of-market comparison site for law? It can be done

If, as is largely anticipated, the Competition and Markets Authority again points the profession at the water, how are the regulators supposed to ensure their members drink?


Loading animation