Prison: Struck-off solicitor has been a prison officer
A solicitor struck off in 2019 after being recorded by an undercover reporter advising on a sham marriage has failed in a bid to return to the profession.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) said Zulfiqar Ali, who also facilitated property transactions which bore the hallmarks of fraud, did not “remotely reach the level of evidence and reassurance required” to return to the profession.
Mr Ali had worked as a prison officer at HMP Pentonville since October last year, a public service role with duties “requiring discipline and adherence to rules”.
However, he remained within a probationary period and there was no evidence from the prison service addressing his “performance, reliability, judgment, integrity, or trustworthiness in that role”.
Mr Ali also worked as a part-time furniture salesman for four years since being struck off and then as a security officer for G4S.
There was “no evidence” from G4S of Mr Ali’s performance or trustworthiness, and the sales role “did not provide evidence of trust and responsibility of such weight as to meet the high threshold in a dishonesty restoration case”.
Mr Ali was struck off [1] both for his sham marriages advice and his property-related misconduct in April 2019, but he appealed and the Solicitors Regulation Authority agreed to an order quashing the SDT’s decision because it had not provided the solicitor with a transcript of the tape used for the TV programme.
The matter returned to a fresh tribunal in September 2020, which again struck him off [2], ordering him to pay £26,500 in costs. The High Court rejected an appeal [3] against this the following year. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal in March 2022.
Mr Ali accepted that a costs order of £15,000 remained outstanding in relation to the High Court appeal, for which he remained responsible. He said he was willing to agree a “reasonable repayment arrangement”.
He submitted that public confidence was maintained not only by sanctioning serious misconduct but also by recognising genuine rehabilitation “where compelling evidence existed”.
He contended that a person who had accepted the tribunal’s findings, lived without further misconduct, served in a trusted public role, and sought to continue in regulated public service did not pose a risk to the profession’s reputation.
SDT guidance is that, save in exceptional circumstances, an application made within six years of strike-off was likely to be regarded as premature. Though six years had elapsed from the strike-off decision, the fact that he pursued appeals was “relevant to the weight that could be given to his asserted insight and rehabilitation”.
The absence of further misconduct since did not, of itself, amount to positive evidence of rehabilitation sufficient to overcome findings of dishonesty and a lack of integrity, it went on. The tribunal required “cogent evidence of reformation, insight, trustworthiness, and future safeguards”.
Mr Ali did not provide this. There was no evidence of any roles he might seek were he to return to the profession, and without this the SDT could not assess whether any role would be appropriate, what supervision would exist, or whether safeguards could be put in place to address the risks arising from the original findings.
Responding to Mr Ali’s claim that he had “kept himself informed of legal developments by reviewing legal and government websites”, the tribunal “accepted that he had maintained some interest in legal matters”.
However, the evidence was “wholly insufficient”, as he “had not produced a record of courses, training, seminars, structured learning, ethics training, professional standards training, or assessed continuing development”.
The SDT went on: “The findings which led to Mr Ali’s strike-off were grave, including that Mr Ali had advised and offered assistance in relation to a sham marriage intended to circumvent the UK immigration system.
“The tribunal also had regard to the handling and transfer of substantial purchaser deposit monies in circumstances which bore the hallmarks of fraud and placed client monies at risk.
The tribunal “gave credit for Mr Ali’s apology, his evidence of reflection, his clean record, and his employment outside the legal profession. It accepted that he had taken some steps to rebuild his life.”
But he had not evidenced rehabilitation “to the required standard” and “did not remotely reach the level of evidence and reassurance required before restoration could be ordered in a case involving dishonesty, lack of integrity, and conduct which had undermined the rule of law and public trust”.
Mr Ali’s application was refused and he was ordered to pay £3,000 in costs.