SDT: Controls needed on solicitor’s future practice
A woman who used a solicitor to buy a law firm while she was still a trainee, and then practised unsupervised, has been fined for misconduct.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) said that while Zarina Shaheen Bostan’s motivation—to qualify as a solicitor—”could be understood”, it did not accept “that the means she adopted to achieve that aim were appropriate or justified”.
The solicitor who fronted the acquisition, Md Zahidul Islam, was also fined.
Essex firm Silverman Peake, which is no longer operating, was owned by Nageena Choudhry and Mohammed Saleem, who qualified in 2003 and 2013 respectively.
Ms Bostan had joined as a trainee in January 2019. However, that October, the pair discovered that she had been dismissed by her previous employer and had not, as she had told them, left voluntarily,. Asked either to tell the truth or resign, Ms Bostan resigned.
Soon after, she re-established contact with Ms Choudhry to introduce Mr Islam, who qualified in 2016, as a prospective buyer; he had agreed to supervise her training for £3,000 per month.
The sale completed in January 2020 for £25,001 and Mr Islam took over as the sole owner and compliance officer. On the same day, she and Mr Islam executed a trainee-principal agreement (TPA).
Under this, Ms Bostan funded the purchase and in return Mr Islam agreed to employ her as a trainee solicitor and branch manager. He also undertook not to interfere with her management of the office and acknowledged she would operate it as she deemed fit and reasonable.
While Mr Islam “nominally supervised” her work heading up the office, the SDT recorded that Ms Bostan in practice assumed responsibility for managing the firm’s operations and accounts.
She became a partner in February 2020 but did not qualify until December that year.
The previous owners were retained as consultants to facilitate the transition and manage legacy files.
In October 2020, Mr Islam terminated the consultancy agreements and Mr Saleem complained to the Solicitors Regulation Authority about the TPA.
Ms Bostan told the SDT that Ms Choudhry had originally agreed to sell her the firm but changed her mind after being advised that a trainee could not own or acquire a legal practice.
From the outset, she said, the acquisition had proceeded on the understanding that she would become the owner once qualified and Mr Islam would resign.
The TPA, she said, was drafted to protect her investment and secure her position.
The SDT found that both Mr Islam and Ms Bostan failed to maintain public trust and confidence, and had lacked integrity. They also failed to have effective governance structures, arrangements, systems and controls in place.
They both also failed to maintain adequate accounting records and financial oversight of the legacy bank accounts; Ms Bostan had set up new ones.
Ms Bostan was further found to have accepted a part 36 offer on behalf of a client without instructions or proper authority; she claimed the deadline was approaching and she could not contact the client.
Ms Choudhry and Mr Saleem were accused of misconduct in going ahead with the sale despite knowing what was really going on.
However, the SDT cleared them both, concluding that they were not aware of the terms of the TPA, “nor had reasonable grounds to suspect” them.
They also did not know or suspect that Mr Islam “lacked supervisory capability” in relation to Ms Bostan.
In deciding on sanction, the SDT said that, although Ms Bostan’s misconduct did not result in actual harm, there was “a significant risk of harm, which [she] failed to fully acknowledge up till the very end of the proceedings”.
It continued: “She showed no genuine remorse and demonstrated a lack of insight into the problems her conduct had caused, instead seeking to deflect responsibility onto others during the course of her evidence and cross-examination.”
However, the tribunal decided that her conduct “did not quite cross the threshold warranting a suspension from practice”.
But as well as fining her £10,001, there needed to be “protective measures” for the future, which meant she could not be a sole owner of a law firm and would need SRA approval to practise as a solicitor. She can only apply to remove these after three years.
Mr Islam’s motivation “stemmed from a desire to broaden his experience in a new area of law and legal practice”.
But in doing so, he assumed responsibilities “beyond what he had anticipated or could competently manage. The evidence did not suggest that he gave sufficient thought or planning to the acquisition and management of the firm”.
The SDT said it “discerned a degree of naivety on his part”, relying on a struck-off solicitor’s advice to buy the firm and on Ms Bostan, who drafted the terms of the deal “solely to her advantage”.
Mr Islam also assumed Ms Choudhry and Mr Saleem would continue to support him, despite no express assurances or formal commitment to do so.
“The tribunal was satisfied that he had learnt a salutary lesson and had taken the proceedings with the seriousness they merited.” He too was fined £10,001.
The SDT also ordered Ms Bostan to pay costs of nearly £27,000 and Mr Islam £15,500.
Leave a Comment