Elderly man’s house at risk as solicitor acts for both sides of dodgy deal

Yusuf Jamal Siddiqui was suspended for nine months after a conflict of interest in a property transfer

A solicitor has been suspended after acting on both sides of a property transfer that left an elderly and vulnerable client at risk of losing his only home for nothing.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) ruled that Yusuf Jamal Siddiqui, 50, failed in his professional duty when he oversaw the transaction without properly assessing the client’s mental capacity or recognising the glaring conflict of interest.

Siddiqui, a sole practitioner at YJS Legal in north-west London, qualified in 2010. He admitted some allegations, including that he had not considered his client’s right to remain in the property after the transfer and that he had failed to advise the man, referred to as Client A, to seek independent legal advice.

The case centred on Client A’s decision to transfer his sole residence to a neighbour for nil consideration — a move the tribunal described as “unusual and significant in its effect”. The SDT found that such a serious transaction demanded a structured and thorough capacity assessment, equivalent to the standard required for executing a will.

Instead, Siddiqui relied only on his personal impressions from time spent with the client. He said he had seen no reason to doubt the man’s understanding but admitted he had not followed a formal process or sought professional input.

The tribunal ruled that his approach was wholly inadequate. Citing both court and Law Society guidance, it concluded that the presumption of capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had been rebutted and that Siddiqui was under a duty to conduct a proper enquiry.

The solicitor also failed to check whether a lasting power of attorney (LPA) existed. It later emerged that such a document was in place, raising further doubts about whether the client could lawfully authorise the gift.

Adding to the misconduct, Siddiqui charged Client A a fee that the SDT described as “disproportionate and unjustified”. Though the exact sum was not disclosed, it amounted to a quarter of his firm’s annual turnover. Siddiqui argued that the fixed fee was intended to cover future legal work, but admitted this was never made clear in the client-care letter.

The SDT said this overcharging, combined with the failure to protect a vulnerable client, represented a serious breach of trust.

Siddiqui also admitted to poor management of client funds. His firm’s records were not properly maintained, and at one point, client money was paid into his personal account before being transferred to the firm’s account.

In mitigation, he told the tribunal that once he discovered the LPA, he took steps to reverse the property transfer with HM Land Registry and refunded Client A’s fees. He also instructed accountants to bring his firm’s financial systems into compliance, closed his client account to avoid future issues, and undertook further training.

But the tribunal found his attempts at repair came too late. It said he demonstrated only “limited insight” into the seriousness of his failings, noting that remedial action after the fact did not reflect real-time recognition of the risks to his client.

For these reasons, the SDT imposed a nine-month suspension. It said the sanction reflected “the seriousness of the misconduct, which represented a significant breach of trust”.

The tribunal concluded: “The transaction exposed Client A – a vulnerable and elderly individual – to the potential loss of his home. The conflict of interest was real and immediate, and the respondent’s failure to recognise it represented a material dereliction of duty.”

Siddiqui was also ordered to pay £21,130 in costs.