Talha Ahmad ignored court and regulator orders for over two years—now he’s suspended and fined
A law firm director who repeatedly ignored both court orders and his professional regulator has been suspended from practice for six months in a disciplinary ruling that exposes serious misconduct and evasion.
Talha Jamil Ahmad, the sole director and manager of A&T Legal Ltd—trading as Leaside Law—was found by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) to have failed to ensure his firm complied with a court ruling, and later refused to co-operate with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). The tribunal concluded that Ahmad’s prolonged and deliberate non-compliance brought the legal profession into disrepute.
The chain of misconduct began when Leaside Law acted—or claimed to act—for a charity involved in a litigation dispute. The firm filed an ex parte application for an injunction, which was swiftly overturned. The firm withdrew before the claim was dismissed entirely by the county court. In the aftermath, the opposing side was awarded legal costs. These were to be paid either by the claimants or by the firm itself.
But Leaside Law failed to file a crucial witness statement identifying who it had taken instructions from. It also did not respond to the opposing party’s application for wasted costs. The county court, having had enough, ordered the firm to pay £29,704 in costs or make a formal application to vary or set aside the order within 14 days. It did neither.
Embed from Getty ImagesWhen the opposing party reported the issue to the SRA, the regulator launched its own investigation—only to find that Ahmad would continue his pattern of silence. Over the next two years, he dodged correspondence, repeatedly asked for extensions he never honoured, and ultimately failed to supply the information, explanations, or documents the SRA demanded.
Ahmad, who qualified in 2014, did not even attend the disciplinary hearing. The SDT said he made no attempt to engage with the process, forcing them to proceed in his absence. It upheld all three allegations brought against him, including his failure to comply with a court order and a continued refusal to co-operate with the SRA.
In its judgment, the tribunal condemned his actions as a gross breach of public trust. “In making no apparent attempt to comply with the court order…he had failed to maintain the trust that the public had in him as a solicitor and in the legal profession as a whole,” it stated.
The SDT found his conduct so severe that it ruled out lesser penalties like a reprimand or fine. “To protect the public and the reputation of the legal profession,” it said, “the respondent should be suspended from practice.”
In addition to the suspension, Ahmad was hit with £24,735 in costs. And his punishment doesn’t end after six months. Once the suspension lapses, he will still face indefinite restrictions, including being barred from practising as a sole practitioner or partner in a law firm.
This case sends a sobering message about the importance of compliance and professional accountability. The SRA’s prosecution and the tribunal’s tough stance highlight how severely regulators view non-engagement and disrespect for legal processes.
Ahmad’s name now joins a growing list of solicitors facing the sharp end of disciplinary justice—an ignominious fall from grace for a solicitor who once ran his own firm.
