Tribunal bans Mukhtar after £2,000 client transfer and orders him to pay £11,207.37 in costs
A legal clerk has been permanently banned from working in solicitors’ practices after a tribunal found he caused a vulnerable client to pay money into his personal bank account.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) ruled against Ashed Ahmed Mukhtar, born in 1984, after he admitted reckless behaviour but denied dishonesty. Despite his refusal to concede dishonesty, he accepted that his actions breached professional rules and agreed to a permanent order under Section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974, preventing him from being employed or remunerated in connection with a solicitor’s practice.
The hearing took place on 5 December 2011 before Miss T. Cullen (chair), Mr S. Tinkler and Mr S. Marquez. Geoffrey Hudson of Penningtons Solicitors LLP represented the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), while Philip McGhee, instructed by the Bar Pro Bono Unit, appeared for Mukhtar.
£2,000 in personal account
The case centred on an incident in December 2008 when Mukhtar worked in the personal injury department at Manchester firm Ralli Solicitors. A client, known as Mr A, received a £10,000 interim damages cheque. Of this, £8,000 went into the client’s own account, while £2,000 was deposited into Mukhtar’s Halifax account. That sum stayed there until February 2009.
The issue came to light in April 2009 when Mr A’s new solicitors complained to Ralli. Mukhtar admitted to his employers that he had received the money but did not repay it until 23 April 2009—weeks after being told not to contact Mr A and being suspended from work. Against instructions, he continued to have contact with the client while the investigation unfolded.
Consent to permanent ban
Faced with the allegations, Mukhtar admitted recklessly providing his personal account details and delaying repayment. He also admitted breaching his employer’s instructions by contacting the client during the investigation. However, he would not accept that his actions were dishonest.
The SRA acknowledged that proving dishonesty had become harder because the client had died in February 2011. As a result, both sides reached agreement: Mukhtar gave a written undertaking never to seek to overturn or vary the Section 43 order. The tribunal accepted this, finding that the public interest required his exclusion from the profession.
Embed from Getty ImagesTribunal’s findings
The SDT concluded that Mukhtar’s conduct breached the Solicitors’ Code of Conduct by failing to act with integrity and by diminishing public trust. It found the allegations substantiated on the basis of his admissions, but because dishonesty could not be tested through cross-examination, it made its order without a formal finding of dishonesty.
The sanction was comprehensive. From 5 December 2011, no solicitor, law firm, recognised body, or manager may employ, remunerate, or allow Mukhtar to have any role or interest in their practice. Effectively, it was a career-ending decision.
Costs dispute
The SRA sought £11,207.37 in costs, including its internal fees. Hudson argued the proceedings were justified, evidenced by Mukhtar’s consent to the order. He also pointed to inconsistencies in Mukhtar’s statements about his means, noting that he had once claimed savings of £20,000 and income from properties and investments.
McGhee countered that Mukhtar had no capital, lived with his mother, and relied on Job Seeker’s Allowance. He said the properties belonged to relatives and that Mukhtar’s savings had gone on repaying loans and funding legal studies.
Despite these arguments, the tribunal found insufficient evidence of hardship and ordered Mukhtar to pay the full £11,207.37.
Final order
In its written decision, dated 12 January 2012, the tribunal imposed the Section 43 ban and confirmed the costs order. It noted Mukhtar’s undertaking never to challenge the ruling, cementing a permanent prohibition on his involvement in the legal profession.
The case underscored the tribunal’s hard line on conduct that undermines trust in the profession, even where dishonesty cannot be formally proven. For Mukhtar, the outcome was devastating: his legal career ended, and a heavy financial penalty imposed.