SRA shuts down law firm after High Court questions fitness to practise

Print This Post

4 September 2013


SRA: alleged rule breaches

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has closed down an east London law firm less than a month after the High Court questioned its fitness to practise.

The SRA intervened into the practice of Benny Thomas and Syed Tanweer Akhtar at Consilium Chambers LLP and suspended their practising certificates with immediate effect.

Mr Thomas was found in contempt of court following a hearing in relation to emergency, out-of-hours applications to High Court judges for injunctions to stop deportations.

The incoming Lord Chief Justice, Sir John Thomas, and Mr Justice Cranston determined not to take any further action against him in light of their decision to refer the firm to the SRA. They invited the SRA to conduct an “urgent investigation into the firm” and to consider in particular “the firm’s continuing fitness to practise [and] the court’s findings from today’s hearing in relation to the untruthfulness of evidence given by Mr B Thomas to this court and decide what action to take”.

The SRA would not confirm at this stage whether the decision to intervene was as a direct result of the ruling.

The grounds for intervention were a failure to comply with the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 and the SRA Principles 2011. Further, in relation to both Consilium Chambers and Mr Thomas’s practice, “there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Benny Thomas as a manager of Consilium Chambers LLP in connection with his practice as a solicitor”.



Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

All comments will be moderated before posting. Please see our Terms and Conditions

Legal Futures Blog

Why lawyers should be paranoid about client confidentiality

Facebook

In April 2016, a lawsuit was filed claiming one Chicago-based law firm had failed to protect confidential client information. The suit didn’t accuse lawyers at the firm of inadvertently sharing client information. In fact, according to The American Lawyer, “[t]he complaint makes no claim that data was stolen or used against clients.” The claim solely focused on the fact that lax data security could have put client information at risk. In other words, fail to take proper precautions to protect client confidentiality, and you could find yourself in hot water – whether your lack of preparedness breaches confidentiality or not.

December 11th, 2017