Experienced solicitor acted in high-risk Leicester flat scheme without disclosing personal ties
A solicitor with over two decades in practice has been suspended for six months after failing to disclose a glaring conflict of interest involving his wife and a collapsed property development in Leicester.
Waheed Ur Rehman Mian, owner of east London law firm M-R Solicitors, was found by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to have acted without integrity over a two-year period during which he handled legal matters for buyers investing in off-plan flats. His wife, Sobi Waheed, was a director of the development company Aronex – a fact Mian claimed he was unaware of until midway through 2019.
The tribunal rejected his explanation as “fundamentally flawed,” concluding that Mian either knew or, as an experienced solicitor, ought to have known about the conflict. He also failed to disclose that two members of his own staff were Aronex directors.
Aronex marketed a city-centre apartment block in Leicester between 2017 and 2019, attracting buyers with the promise of quick returns. Transactions were structured so that 70% of the purchase price was paid upfront, before a single brick was laid. Although the firm secured planning approval in 2019, it never commenced construction and entered administration the same year – leaving investors exposed and furious.
Embed from Getty ImagesMian’s firm was responsible for handling contracts and deposits on the scheme, yet investors were not told about his wife’s directorial role in Aronex or his firm’s deeper ties. Mian told the tribunal he had no expertise in conveyancing and admitted the scheme was “high risk.” He also accepted that a trainee solicitor handled much of the casework without proper supervision.
Though Mian stressed that insurers ultimately compensated all affected clients, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) said that wasn’t the point. “The firm should never have taken them on,” the tribunal concluded. “There was a clear and prohibited conflict of interest.”
The tribunal also noted that Mian had previously referred to his wife as a “silent director and shareholder,” but still failed to advise clients of the conflict. The oversight, he said, was due to the demands of running a busy practice – a defence the panel dismissed.
Mian’s lack of insight into his professional duties, paired with his evasive handling of the conflict, led the tribunal to question his suitability to practise. The ruling described his actions as showing a lack of integrity, stating that regulatory obligations had been neglected over an extended period.
In addition to his six-month suspension, Mian has been ordered to pay the SRA’s legal costs in full – a hefty bill of £40,218.
