Search site
Call our office
Make an enquiry
Our Resolve. Your Resolution.
A Yorkshire lawyer who was wrongly accused of forging signatures on immigration applications has been cleared by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal which ruled that there was ‘no case to answer’.
Action was taken against immigration caseworker, Mohammed Ali Khan, by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) which was seeking an order under Section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974 to prevent him being employed by any law firm after he was accused of forging several signatures on immigration application forms at Kher Solicitors, Leeds, where he worked.
He was sacked in November 2013 following an “emotionally charged disciplinary meeting” with the firm’s principal, Satpal Roth. She claimed that, in that meeting, Mr Khan admitted forging her signature and that of a colleague, and reported him to the SRA.
Mohammed Ali Khan had joined the firm, which has its head office in Sowerby Bridge, six months earlier and had set up the Leeds office in Roundhay Road bringing some of his own clients to the practice.
However, a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal hearing in London on July 22 was told by Harrowells regulatory specialist solicitor, Matthew Rowley, who represented Mr Khan, that Khers solicitors had failed to investigate the allegations and that those involved in the disciplinary meeting had lost track of what was said.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard that the notes of the meeting with Satpal Roth, taken by another solicitor, were confused and contradicted the allegations that Mr Khan had admitted forging the signatures, with very clear records of his denials.
Both Satpal Roth and her colleague admitted under cross-examination by Matthew Rowley that the notes were unclear and that they had no hard evidence that Mohammed Ali Khan had forged any signatures.
Other staff, including an administrator, had access to the forms and could have forged the signatures but Satpal Roth confirmed that no other proper investigation or interviews had taken place.
Matthew Rowley told the tribunal that one forged signature was on part of a form which did not need a solicitor’s certification. Satpal Roth admitted that Mr Khan knew this and would have had no reason to forge an unnecessary signature.
The tribunal threw out the case without having to hear any defence after Matthew Rowley said that the lack of evidence bought by Capsticks, representing the SRA, showed that there was no case to answer. Mr Khan was awarded £5,000 costs to be paid by the SRA. In addition to the award of costs to Mr Khan, the SRA, which is funded through solicitors' practising fees, incurred more than £20,000 of its own legal costs.
After the judgment, Matthew Rowley said: “Regulatory hearings differ from other litigation in that costs are not awarded if you win but only if it can be shown that the prosecution was a complete shambles or should simply never have been brought. The SRA should never have pursued this case to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
“Mohammed Ali Khan is well known in and outside the legal profession in Yorkshire and his reputation had been severely tarnished by this action. Although he has been totally vindicated, he has been devastated professionally and financially.
“This case was ill-conceived with no independent investigation by the SRA, who relied on a prejudiced ‘investigation’ by Mr Khan’s employer. From the outset they failed to consider his denials or the lack of and inconsistency in the evidence against him.
“This is a worrying example of the SRA exercising its regulatory power in a high handed, draconian and inefficient manner with a complete disregard to the evidence. It is all too easy for the SRA to do this without repercussions due to the high bar to be met before costs are awarded against it.
“This case, and in particular the financial implications for the legal profession, is a signal that the SRA needs to raise it standards. The SRA cannot expect to have the trust of the legal profession or the public until it does so.”
Mohammed Ali Khan, who now lectures in law in Yorkshire, said: “This was an unfair and highly damaging action against me. I am grateful to Matthew Rowley for his expertise in having the case thrown out and I now hope to re-build my career.”
Recent Budget offers farmers greater flexibility when considering environmental schemes
It has been a tumultuous couple of years in the farming sector, with wholesale changes to the subsidy regime, commodity price shocks and uncertainty concerning export markets. In this context, there was at least some good news in the recent Budget for...
The short answer: it depends. Both spouses will need to provide full details about their assets and income, with documentation in support e.g. bank statements, pay slips, property valuation, mortgage statements. This is so that the court can...
Advances in technology mean that rural Yorkshire is these days a viable location for large scale solar farms – so yet another string is added to the diversification bow. However, the scale and longevity of such schemes means that greater care needs to...
