Managing partner fined £40k after vulnerable clients lost home in undervalued sale
A managing partner who attempted to shift blame onto a junior solicitor for glaring conveyancing failures has been fined £40,000 and ordered to pay costs of £28,000.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) ruled that Ajaz Ali, admitted in 2010 and also serving as the compliance officer for legal practice (COLP) and compliance officer for finance and administration (COFA), acted recklessly in the handling of a residential property sale.
Ali was accused of failing to undertake proper enquiries, failing to advise clients adequately about the risks, and failing to obtain proper consent for instructions. Despite acknowledging that his supervision of newly qualified solicitor Simon Plant had been inadequate, Ali told the tribunal that Plant should shoulder the blame for the failings.
The case revolved around the 2018 sale of a house by Client A and Client B to a neighbour’s son for £52,000 — around 20% of its true value. Client A, seriously ill at the time, and Client B were to remain living in the home after the sale.
Embed from Getty ImagesThe transaction was referred to Ali through an estate agent acting on behalf of the purchaser. Ali passed the file to Plant, who raised concerns that the buyer might be exploiting the clients’ vulnerability and lack of capacity. Despite those concerns, contracts were exchanged.
When Client A later died, the purchaser began altering the property in ways that made life intolerable for Client B. Eventually, Client B was forced out of the house and into temporary accommodation with council support.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) prosecuted both Ali and Plant, arguing that they had failed to act in their clients’ best interests, ignored glaring red flags, and overlooked the undervalued nature of the deal. Crucially, neither Ali nor Plant ever met the clients in person. Client B later stated he had not given permission for Client A to instruct Ali on his behalf.
The tribunal’s judgment left no doubt about Ali’s responsibility. It stated:
“Given his roles and experience, Mr Ali was the person primarily responsible. He was an experienced conveyancer who abdicated responsibility to a junior solicitor, even after voicing concerns. He caused significant harm to his clients, who suffered substantial financial loss and the trauma of losing their home. He also harmed the reputation of the profession.”
The panel found that Ali knew the property was being sold at a gross undervalue, recognised the risk of coercion, and understood that his clients were vulnerable — yet allowed the sale to proceed. The harm, the tribunal said, was entirely foreseeable.
Plant, though fined £7,500, was judged to have been operating under Ali’s supervision at a vulnerable stage in his career. The SDT concluded that the brunt of responsibility rested with Ali as managing partner and compliance officer.
Assessing the misconduct as “very serious”, the tribunal said Ali’s conduct demonstrated a failure of professional duty at every level. His attempt to deflect blame onto his junior colleague only reinforced the need for a significant sanction.
For the clients, the consequences were devastating: the loss of a property at a fraction of its value, the upheaval of forced relocation, and the betrayal of trust by those meant to safeguard their interests.
Ali must now pay £40,000 in fines and £28,000 in costs, marking a costly end to a case that highlights the profession’s duty of care to the vulnerable and the consequences of shirking responsibility