Tribunal ups fine for solicitor who broke restraining order


Sheffield Crown Court: Restraining order imposed

A criminal law solicitor convicted of breaking a restraining order has been fined by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and Tariq Majid had put forward a fine as part of an agreed outcome – obviating the need for a full hearing – but the tribunal initially refused to approve it because the proposed £3,000 was insufficient.

The SRA returned with £5,000, which the SDT said was an “appropriate” sanction.

Mr Majid was born in 1969 and qualified in 2010. In April 2015, Sheffield Crown Court imposed a restraining order on him.

As a result, an SRA adjudicator warned him that he had broken various SRA Principles and any future disciplinary finding would take this into account.

Nevertheless, Mr Majid pleaded guilty at Bradford and Keighley Magistrates’ Court in October 2016 to breaching both the restraining order and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 by “without reasonable excuse” attending the home address and making phone calls to an unnamed person.

The court imposed a community order on Mr Majid, fined him £200 and ordered him to pay a victim surcharge of £85 and prosecution costs of £85.

Mr Majid admitted in the agreed outcome that he had failed to uphold the rule of law and proper administration of justice, to act with integrity and to maintain trust in legal services.

The agreed outcome said: “The public would expect a solicitor to adhere to a court order and a failure to do so would cause confidence in the profession to be undermined.

“Confidence in the profession would be further undermined by the respondent acting as a criminal solicitor and regularly appearing at the police station to represent clients who themselves had acted in breach of restraining orders.”

Mr Majid also admitted failing to notify the SRA of changes in his place of work or business within 14 days between 2013 and 2016.

The outcome said Mr Majid “accepts the allegations and he pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity”, but the public would be “concerned to know that a criminal solicitor had behaved in this way”.

Mr Majid agreed to pay costs of £1,800.




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Reports

No larger firm can ignore the demands of innovation – that was the clear message from our most recent roundtable: “The law firm of the future”, sponsored by LexisNexis Enterprise Solutions. It comes in many forms, predominantly but not just technology, and is not simply a case of automating process. Expertise and process are not mutually exclusive.

Blog

14 November 2018

How accessible is your recruitment process?

Recognising the benefits of employing disabled people in the legal profession, and attracting talented disabled candidates is a great start, but of little use if your recruitment process is not inclusive nor accessible.

Read More