SDT: Solicitor abrogated his responsibility
A managing partner has failed to convince the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) to blame the one-year qualified solicitor he was supervising for multiple failures on a conveyancing transaction at an undervalue.
The SDT said Ajaz Ali, who also holds both of the compliance roles at Stoke-based Kenneth Jones, had expressed concerns about his clients being coerced at the outset of the transaction but then did nothing to satisfy himself that this was not the case.
Given his role and experience, he was more culpable than Simon Plant, who qualified in September 2017 – a little under a year before the firm was instructed.
The SDT fined Mr Ali £40,000 despite his argument that he should pay less than the £7,500 fine given to Mr Plant. Though the SDT’s ruling on Mr Ali has been published, the one for Mr Plant has not yet been.
Both faced the same allegation – that they failed to undertake adequate enquiries in relation to a residential property transaction, advise their clients adequately as to the risks and consequences of the sale, or obtain Client B’s consent for Client A to give instructions on their behalf.
The clients bought the property in 1992 for £24,750, at 50% of its then market value under right to buy.
In 2018, Client B found out that Client A had been diagnosed with cancer a decade earlier and had agreed that their neighbour’s son would purchase their home but that Client B would continue to live there. Client A was 68 years old and Client B 70 – Client A had always handled the couple’s paperwork.
The SDT recorded: “Client B believed that Client A was concerned for her health and wanted to make provision for him before she died. Client B has no recollection of speaking with either of the [solicitors] during the sale of the property.
“He stated he had no direct contact with the firm and did not give consent for Client A to provide instructions on his behalf.”
The sale completed in November 2018 for £52,000, ie just £2,500 more than its full value in 1992. The clients received net proceeds of £11,700 after the mortgage and other debts were paid off.
The clients continued to live in the property until Client A passed away in August 2021, after which Client B said the purchaser started making his everyday living uncomfortable and difficult – so much so that, in August 2022, the local council moved him to temporary accommodation due to the state and safety of his living arrangements.
A shorthold tenancy agreement was entered into for a nominal rent the day following completion, which the SDT said appeared to be signed by the clients, although Client B said this was only sent to him when he received an eviction notice in 2022.
The council reported the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority on his behalf.
The SDT said Mr Plant indicated that both he and Mr Ali had concerns before accepting the instructions that the purchaser was taking advantage of the clients’ lack of capacity and further whether they were really dealing with the clients – or if in fact the purchaser was providing answers or coercing the clients into giving the answers they did.
The file did not detail how the firm came to be instructed or Mr Ali’s initial advice to the clients. Neither he nor Mr Plant met them in person, as they were based 125 miles away in Bedfordshire.
Mr Ali admitted the allegations against him, including that his conduct was reckless because his supervision “fell below the required standard”.
But he argued that the allegations should have focused on Mr Plant as the solicitor with day-to-day conduct of the matter. Whilst he was newly qualified, Mr Plant’s background was in conveyancing prior to qualification – he is now listed on the firm’s website as an associate and head of conveyancing.
Mr Plant was fined £7,500, reduced from £19,500, and Mr Ali said any financial penalty should be lower than that.
The SDT concluded that, given his roles and experience, Mr Ali was “primarily responsible” for the matter and the failures that occurred.
“He was an experienced conveyancing solicitor who had abrogated his responsibility for the matter to a junior solicitor notwithstanding the concern he expressed. He had caused significant harm to his clients who had suffered a significant financial loss, the property having been sold for approximately 20% of its value.
“He had failed to consider accommodation post-sale for his clients. Ultimately, Client B was forced to leave his home as a result of Mr Ali’s failure.
“He had also caused harm to the reputation of the profession. He knew that the property was being sold at an undervalue. He had concerns about coercion. He knew that those clients were vulnerable…
“Whilst he accepted that he had not supervised Mr Plant as he should, Mr Ali’s view was that his misconduct was less culpable than that of Mr Plant as the solicitor with conduct of the case. The tribunal disagreed.”
In mitigation, the SDT said Mr Ali had admitted the misconduct at an early stage and implemented new processes so that, in a matter where no estate agents were involved, the firm required the seller to provide a valuation.
Assessing the misconduct as “very serious”, the SDT decided that a fine of £40,000 was appropriate and that Mr Ali pay costs of £28,000 too.
Chris Berry 
The Managing Partner is a lucky man. Without seeing the papers, this still fails the Smell Test.
Equally, we don’t know the circumstances of Mr Plant, where this firm was based, anything socially relevant. On the face of it, a more lenient approach may have been appropriate for Mr Plant?