Developments: Company went into administration
A dual-qualified solicitor and barrister has been suspended for nine months by a Bar disciplinary tribunal in the wake of a six-month suspension by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).
The Bar tribunal said it was “deeply conscious” of the dangers of punishing Waheed Ur Rehman Mian twice, but observed that he “appeared to be more concerned with the damage to his own reputation than he was to the damage to the reputation of the profession” done by his actions.
We reported last year [1] that the SDT suspended Mr Mian for not disclosing conflicts of interest to clients, which meant he should not have acted for them.
Mr Mian, who qualified in 2003, owned and ran East London law firm M-R Solicitors, which from June 2017 acted for around 25 of 75 purchasers from two off-plan developments in Leicester until the development company went into administration in November 2019.
Investors paid an upfront reservation fee of £5,000 and then 70% of the purchase price prior to completion. The SDT said there were several conflicts Mr Mian failed to disclose to clients, most notably that his wife was a director of the development company.
At the hearing, Mr Mian claimed he did not know this until summer 2019, and that his wife did not know M-R Solicitors was acting for purchasers. The SDT did not believe this.
The clients’ losses were made good by M-R Solicitors’ insurers.
Mr Mian was called to the Bar in 1998 but has never had a practising certificate.
The Bar tribunal said it did not need to decide when Mr Mian was aware of his wife’s directorship as it would not greatly affect sanction.
In mitigation, Mr Mian denied that his actions were financially motivated and that any harm arose out of any conflict of interest, saying that it occurred because of the financial difficulties which befell the developer.
He added that the SDT suspension had resulted in the closure of M-R Solicitors; he was now a 25% share partner in a new firm where he concentrated on immigration work.
He had considered applying for a practising certificate from the Bar Standards Board in the past but had been told he would need to do six months pupillage before he was eligible. He said he had no intention to seek a practising certificate, at least for one or two years.
In deciding on sanction, the tribunal said: “We were conscious that it was not our role to punish Mr Mian for a second time, but rather to protect the public and maintain confidence in the Bar. Further, that we need to focus on the nature of the misconduct relevant in the context of the Bar to determine the appropriate sanction.”
The risk to clients from his conduct was “very high” – they would “probably have gone elsewhere” had they known of the conflict.
“Had they gone elsewhere, they may well have received other advice as to the wisdom of parting with substantial sums of money up front on a scheme such as this. Also, there was an inadequate administration system with Mr Mian as the compliance officer for legal practice.”
Mr Mian’s inability “to grasp why this is serious and how people have suffered” was an aggravating feature.
“To that extent, there is a lack of remorse. We are bound to say that Mr Mian appeared to be more concerned with the damage to his own reputation than he was to the damage to the reputation of the profession.”
It concluded that a nine-month suspension was the right outcome. Mr Mian was also ordered to pay costs of £5,000.
Mr Main had expressed concern that people would think he was being punished for two separate events.
“That would be an ill-informed conclusion and we are not influenced by the potential of un-informed social media gossip to misinterpret a sanction that we impose,” said the tribunal.