Tribunal finds no misconduct after solicitor exchanged on elderly client’s property in one day
A conveyancing solicitor has been cleared of misconduct after overseeing the exchange of contracts for an elderly client on the same day that he was instructed. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ruled that there was no regulatory requirement for Mohammed Israr to undertake enquiries outside the scope of his retainer or to test the client’s understanding of each document in detail where there were no signs of mental incapacity. As a result, the allegation that he failed to act in his client’s best interests was dismissed.
Mr Israr, who qualified in 2019, was working as a consultant at the Birmingham firm Lawrence Kurt on 6 December 2022 when he was approached by an 81 year old man referred to as Client A. The client had lived in his property since 1966 and wanted to sell quickly after responding to a newspaper advertisement from KPM Properties, which indicated it bought homes for cash. KPM instructed its lawyers, Cambridge Solicitors, who then recommended Lawrence Kurt to the client to facilitate a rapid transaction.
Later the same day, KPM’s agent delivered identification documents, proof of address, a bank statement, and the signed instruction papers to the firm. Client A had stated that he wanted exchange to take place immediately once the client care letter had been returned. The agreed sale price was £40,000, with no deposit payable on exchange and completion set for 28 days, with a possible extension for a further 28 days.
Embed from Getty Images
During the day, Mr Israr conducted a short WhatsApp video call with the client to verify his identity and confirm key aspects of the transaction. Client A said he was unable to refinance at the end of his mortgage term and needed to sell quickly to avoid the prospect of repossession. The exchange of contracts was completed in line with those instructions.
More than a month later, in January 2023, the client’s daughter, referred to as Person B, discovered the transaction and contacted the solicitor to express her concerns. On the same day, the buyer’s current solicitors, Trowers and Hamlins, confirmed that they were ready to complete and that funds were on their way. Mr Israr said the transaction would not proceed. Two months later, the firm sent a notice to complete within ten working days.
Client A subsequently sought advice from another solicitor, Stephen Roberts of Bird Wilford and Sale, who questioned whether he had the capacity to enter into the sale. A brief mental health assessment did not support concerns about capacity. Mr Roberts also told Trowers and Hamlins that the property’s true value was about £170,000 and that the sale would have left the client homeless. Plans were made for a full capacity assessment, but the client died before it could take place.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority alleged that Mr Israr failed to act in his client’s best interests. The tribunal rejected those allegations. It said the case highlighted the practice of quick cash sales at an undervalue but noted that it remained lawful. The tribunal accepted that Mr Israr had not seen mortgage documents and therefore lacked information that might have prompted further questions about the client’s financial position.
The tribunal concluded that the solicitor did not take advantage of a vulnerable client. It found that the client showed no signs of confusion or lack of capacity and had given clear instructions that he wanted a rapid sale at a low price which he had negotiated independently. The tribunal said a more experienced solicitor might have carried out additional enquiries, but there was no regulatory requirement for Mr Israr to go beyond the agreed retainer.
It observed that Person B acted in what she believed to be her father’s interests, though these did not necessarily align with his stated wishes. The tribunal described Mr Israr as a credible witness who believed he was acting properly, although it noted that he might have benefited from stronger supervision as a junior solicitor.
The tribunal concluded that the duty to act in a client’s best interests must be understood within the scope of the retainer and does not oblige a solicitor to second guess clear instructions from a client with capacity. The allegations were dismissed and both parties agreed that no order for costs should be made.