SDT: Solicitor was trying to act in the best interests of his client
A solicitor who knowingly lied in a meeting has escaped being struck off because a tribunal accepted that he did so to protect his client.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) described Shafiq-Ul Hassan’s reasons as “laudable” but the lies were “deliberate, significant, and clearly contrary to the principles of honesty and integrity expected of a solicitor”.
A “substantial sanction” was necessary given the need to maintain public confidence but there were exceptional circumstances that justified a sanction less than striking off, the usual outcome in cases of dishonesty.
Mr Hassan, 55, qualified in 2005 and at the time ran now-defunct City Law Solicitors in Cardiff.
He had acted for Client A in 2013 in buying a property and later acted for him in proceedings to remove his name from the title register.
A restriction had been placed at HM Land Registry which prevented the property’s sale or transfer. Client A asked him to remove it but withdrew the instructions in May 2019.
Mr Hassan pursued Client A for his costs, leading to a hearing in September 2020 at Cardiff County Court.
The court was given a transcript of a meeting from May 2019 between the solicitor, Client A and two of Client A’s associates, one of whom had secretly recorded it.
This revealed that Mr Hassan had lied about the ownership of the property and also suggested that an adjournment of tribunal proceedings in relation to the transfer of the property could be obtained by lying and producing fraudulent documents.
The solicitor told the court that he had done so after Client A told him that these people were pressurising him to withdraw the case and Client A had asked him to “just get rid of them”.
The judge was unconvinced by Mr Hassan’s explanation and said his conduct should be investigated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Client A’s new solicitor reported Mr Hassan.
However, the SDT accepted Mr Hassan’s evidence that Client A “faced extreme pressure from those present at the meeting” and Mr Hassan had lied about the ownership of the property in order to protect him.
It said Mr Hassan sought to act in the best interests of his client but said he “should not have put himself in a position where he engaged in a meeting with parties exerting pressure on his client and where he could only provide client protection by lying to those present”.
It found that Mr Hassan encouraged Client A to lie to the Lands Tribunal to seek an adjournment but this was again to protect Client A.
The SDT also considered an unrelated matter, in which Mr Hassan became involved in a boundary dispute with his neighbours.
He sent them a letter which purported to attach a chartered surveyor’s report, when in fact the author was not a chartered surveyor and the company which he said he worked for no longer existed.
The SDT accepted that the instruction to the ‘surveyor’ was given by Mr Hassan’s builder, that the solicitor was not aware the company was not operational and that the report itself did not purport to come from a chartered surveyor.
It found he had damaged public confidence in using the report to apply pressure on his neighbours but was not dishonest.
Mr Hassan also breached an undertaking given to his neighbours to pay £600 for a surveyor’s report if it supported their position, but this was because he “mistakenly believed” that the undertaking was conditional on something which had not happened.
In deciding sanction, the SDT said Mr Hassan’s misconduct had “limited impact” on those in the meeting but “caused significant harm to the reputation of the legal profession”.
But it was limited to that one meeting and he did not conceal his comments when questioned about them in court.
It concluded that a two-year suspension was “fair and proportionate”, reflecting “a serious breach of professional standards” while also “allowing the opportunity for rehabilitation”.
It added: “The tribunal in making its decision recognised and emphasised that the exceptional circumstances were narrowly confined to the facts of the case and should not be read as creating a wider precedent for leniency.”
Mr Hassan was also ordered to pay costs of £37,500.