SDT: Solicitor failed to disclose he was starting a dessert business with client
A solicitor who misled the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) during an investigation into his “manifestly incompetent conduct” has been struck off.
The allegations against Shehzad Ilyas, who owned Bradford-based Goldmark Legal Services at the time of the offences, all stemmed from work the firm did in 2022 on a personal injury claim for ‘Client A’.
Client A was also a family friend, worked at the firm and had close financial ties to Mr Ilyas, 41. He qualified as a solicitor in 2012.
The work was done by a paralegal at Goldmark; Mr Ilyas was the supervisor and the documents were in his name.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) heard that there was repeated non-compliance with court orders over a sustained period, which resulted in adjournments, wasted costs orders against Goldmark, the exclusion of evidence and ultimately the striking out of the claim.
Mr Ilyas admitted various rule breaches, including that he had failed to supervise the matter properly and failed to ensure witness statements signed by him were accurate. He accepted that he had been “manifestly incompetent”, but denied he had lacked integrity.
But the SDT concluded that the conduct in this case “went beyond ordinary negligence or an isolated failure of supervision”.
It went on: “The tribunal considered that a solicitor acting with integrity would have taken effective steps to ensure that court orders were complied with, or, if compliance was not possible, that appropriate applications were made promptly. Mr Ilyas did neither.
“His repeated failure to engage properly with orders of the court, particularly where he had not challenged or sought to vary them, was inconsistent with the higher ethical standards expected of a solicitor and officer of the court.”
Mr Ilyas had to give evidence during the case over the non-compliance and was asked at the hearing in Bradford County Court in November 2022 whether he knew Client A personally and, if so, in what context.
Mr Ilyas said he knew Client A through his family and that they were co-directors of a business. But he failed to mention that Client A was an employee at the firm and that they were co-directors of other businesses.
The SDT found his answer technically correct: “Although he had misled the court by omission, the tribunal was not satisfied that he had done so dishonestly or recklessly. It accepted that the news of his uncle’s death [minutes before the hearing began] had affected his ability to think clearly.”
The judge in Bradford referred the solicitor to the SRA. Mr Ilyas initially told investigators only that Client A was a “family friend” and that they had “decided to go into business together” – making desserts.
This was not dishonest based on the question that the SRA had put to him, the SDT ruled.
Their connections came under more scrutiny when DAC Beachcroft, which acted for the defendant in Client A’s case, shared its “concerns” with the SRA that Client A worked for Mr Ilyas’s firm, citing three claim notification forms in other cases which an employee with Client A’s name had submitted.
The SRA also found emails in Client A’s client file which, although sent from someone’s else’s account, it suspected had been written by Client A.
Mr Ilyas tried to explain this away in ways the tribunal found “wholly implausible”; rather, his explanations were “deliberate and specific misrepresentations designed to avoid disclosing that Client A had been employed by the firm”. This was dishonest and lacked integrity.
In mitigation, the tribunal was asked to accept that “the misconduct related to the management of a single file which had been allocated to a junior paralegal with limited experience of small claims litigation, coupled with Mr Ilyas’ failure properly to supervise that file”.
A single dishonest representation, where there was no benefit to Mr Ilyas or harm to anyone else, amounted to ‘exceptional circumstances’ that meant the usual sanction in cases of dishonesty, a strike-off, should not follow, his counsel argued.
The SDT rejected this. “Whilst there was no sophisticated planning, his actions were considered” in trying to conceal Client A’s employment with the firm from his regulator.
His other conduct were “in breach of the trust placed in him by his client and the court to act competently, ensuring that information he provided was accurate”.
He had caused harm to his client, although Client A had been fully compensated by Mr Ilyas, and to the reputation of the profession.
The SDT said “it did not accept that the dishonest conduct could properly be characterised as narrow, technical or momentary. The dishonesty occurred during an SRA investigation into Mr Ilyas’ professional conduct and was directed to the regulator in response to enquiries plainly relevant to that investigation”.
There were no exceptional circumstances. Mr Ilyas was struck off and ordered to pay costs of £28,000.
Leave a Comment