Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal finds breach of integrity duties and orders suspension with £37,500 costs
A solicitor who made dishonest statements during a meeting while attempting to protect a client has been suspended from practice by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
The tribunal found that Shafiq-ul Hassan had acted dishonestly during the meeting and breached core professional obligations, including the duties to act with integrity and maintain public trust in the profession.
The tribunal applied the legal test for dishonesty established in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords. It concluded that the statements made by Mr Hassan during the meeting were knowingly untrue and would be regarded as dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.
Mr Hassan accepted that the statements were inaccurate but said he had made them in an attempt to protect a client. The tribunal noted the explanation but held that the motive did not justify dishonesty by a solicitor acting in a professional context.
The case concerned conduct arising from Mr Hassan’s legal practice. At the time of the events, he was the director and owner of a law firm and held several regulatory compliance roles within the firm. These included compliance officer for legal practice (COLP), compliance officer for finance and administration (COFA) and money laundering reporting officer (MLRO).
The tribunal heard that Mr Hassan had been admitted to the roll of solicitors in 1970 and had practised for decades. The firm associated with him later ceased trading in 2021.
The disciplinary proceedings involved two groups of allegations advanced by the regulator. The first related to the meeting in which the dishonest statements were made. The second concerned other aspects of Mr Hassan’s conduct while practising as a solicitor and managing the firm.
After reviewing the evidence, the tribunal found that the allegations connected to the meeting were proved and involved dishonesty. However, it concluded that the additional allegations did not satisfy the legal threshold for dishonesty when assessed against the objective test set out in Ivey.
Despite that distinction, the tribunal said the proven misconduct represented a serious breach of the professional standards expected of solicitors. The conduct breached the SRA Principles, which require solicitors to act with integrity and in a way that upholds confidence in the legal profession.
When deciding sanction, the tribunal considered the seriousness with which dishonesty is treated within the profession alongside Mr Hassan’s long career as a solicitor. While dishonesty findings often result in strike-off, the tribunal concluded that a fixed-term suspension was the proportionate outcome in this case.
The tribunal therefore ordered that Mr Hassan be suspended from practice and pay £37,500 in costs, bringing the disciplinary proceedings to a conclusion.