Talha Jamil Ahmad suspended after failing to pay court‑ordered costs and ignoring the SRA penalties
Solicitor Talha Jamil Ahmad has been suspended from practice for a fixed period after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found he had failed to comply with a £29,704 court costs order, ignored multiple regulatory penalties, and refused to cooperate with investigations into his conduct. Ahmad, the sole manager of his firm, faced allegations of breaches under the SRA Principles 2019, the Code of Conduct for Firms 2019, and the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019, with the Tribunal concluding that all were proven.
The case stemmed from a litigation matter in which Ahmad’s firm acted, or purported to act, for an incorporated charity client. The firm filed an ex‑parte application for an injunction, which was overturned the following day. The firm then ceased acting for the claimants before the County Court dismissed the claim entirely. In its judgment, the court ordered that the opposing party be entitled to recover its legal costs, either from the claimants themselves or from Ahmad’s firm.
Embed from Getty ImagesWhen ordered to serve and file a witness statement confirming the identity of the claimants from whom instructions had been taken, the firm failed to comply. It then did not respond to an application for wasted costs brought by the opposing party. As a result, on 13 March 2020, the County Court ordered Ahmad’s firm to pay £29,704 or apply within 14 days to vary or set aside the order. No payment was made and no application was filed.
Solicitors acting for the opposing party subsequently reported the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), highlighting that the court order had been ignored. The regulator’s investigation found further failings — namely that Ahmad had not engaged with or cooperated in multiple investigations into his conduct. In addition, he had failed to pay fines and fixed penalties imposed by the SRA in response to his non‑compliance.
Ahmad did not take part in the SDT proceedings and was absent from the hearing. The Tribunal proceeded in his absence and, after reviewing the evidence, found all allegations against him proved. The findings included a lack of integrity, serious breaches of the professional codes, and a failure to uphold public trust in the profession.
The SDT considered the combination of ignoring a substantial court costs order, failing to comply with court directions, and refusing to engage with regulatory investigations to be a grave departure from the standards expected of solicitors. It emphasised that such behaviour undermines the authority of the courts, the disciplinary process, and the reputation of the legal profession.
The Tribunal ordered a fixed‑period suspension from practice, with conditions to apply should Ahmad seek to return to the profession. The decision ensures that any future practice would be subject to strict regulatory oversight, reflecting concerns over his previous disregard for both court and regulatory authority.
In its ruling, the SDT noted the absence of any mitigating factors, as Ahmad had made no attempt to engage with the proceedings or offer explanations for his conduct. The Tribunal concluded that a suspension was necessary to protect the public, maintain professional standards, and send a clear message that solicitors who fail to comply with court orders or regulatory requirements will face severe consequences.
The suspension marks a significant fall for Ahmad, whose actions left a substantial court debt unpaid and demonstrated a sustained failure to meet his professional obligations.
