Solicitor struck off after £96k client account shortage; tribunal also orders £11k costs
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has struck off London solicitor Ziad Al Rawi after finding he acted dishonestly in making improper withdrawals totalling £96,000 from his client account.
Mr Al Rawi, admitted to the roll in 2004, practised at Ashton Page Solicitors in Hounslow. Following a forensic investigation in November 2012, the regulator discovered significant irregularities in the firm’s books of account. A subsequent report concluded there was a client account shortage of £104,118.03 as at September 2012.
The Tribunal heard that between January and June 2012, Mr Al Rawi authorised eight transfers from the client account to the office account, totalling £96,000. Payments from the office account included £13,421 to a US-based internet marketing company, sums to an associate, and direct payments to the solicitor himself. In an email to investigators in December 2012, he admitted that he had “temporarily borrowed” client funds.
Embed from Getty ImagesAlthough he repaid £5,000 in May 2012 and later replaced the balance in early 2013 using personal borrowings, the shortage remained unresolved for several months. The Tribunal concluded that he failed to promptly remedy the breach and deliberately concealed the improper withdrawals.
Further breaches included failing to conduct required five-weekly reconciliations of client accounts and recording unallocated transfers of £2,600 in a “suspense account”. The Tribunal also noted that he continued to operate the practice as a sole practitioner after his business partner’s departure without obtaining proper recognition from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
Allegations of dishonesty centred on whether he knowingly used client funds for purposes unrelated to client matters. The Tribunal reviewed medical evidence from a consultant psychiatrist, who suggested Mr Al Rawi had been under stress and suffering an adjustment disorder. However, the panel concluded that he remained aware his conduct was wrong, observing that he made repeated withdrawals over several months and even described the funds as borrowed.
In reaching its decision, the SDT stated: “The Respondent knew that what he was doing was dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people. He used money belonging to others for his own purposes and not for those for which it was entrusted.”
Mr Al Rawi had argued that no clients ultimately suffered losses because the money was repaid before the SRA intervened. He apologised to the Tribunal and stressed that his misconduct was out of character. Nevertheless, the panel found that the seriousness of dishonesty involving client funds left no option but to strike him from the roll.
On sanction, the Tribunal cited the leading authority of SRA v Sharma [2010], noting that strike-off is the usual consequence for dishonesty unless exceptional circumstances apply. It said safeguarding client money is central to public trust in the profession and that Mr Al Rawi’s actions represented a grave breach of that duty.
The SDT also ordered him to pay £11,000 in costs, though enforcement is suspended unless the Tribunal grants permission, given his financial difficulties and pending bankruptcy proceedings.
In its full order, the Tribunal confirmed: “The Respondent, Ziad Al Rawi, solicitor, is struck off the Roll of Solicitors and shall pay costs in the sum of £11,000, not to be enforced without leave.”
The decision underlines the Tribunal’s strict stance on dishonesty and the misuse of client funds, reinforcing the principle that solicitors are expected to uphold the highest standards of integrity and trust.