Tribunal finds no evidence that solicitor from firm shut down by SRA had encouraged fraudulent claims
As reported in the Law Society Gazette last week, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) recently ruled that Rashid Ahmad Khan, formerly of the Rashid and Rashid Law Firm, was not guilty of misconduct following allegations that he had encouraged a false narrative to support an asylum claim.
Image credit: UK GovernmentThe case originates from a high-profile undercover investigation by the Daily Mail in 2023, which resulted in the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) shutting down three immigration firms, including Rashid and Rashid. The Daily Mail alleged that immigration solicitors from the firms had encouraged an undercover reporter to submit false asylum and human rights claims.
Following a hearing last month, the SDT ruled that the allegations brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) against Mr Khan, the respondent, were not proven to the required standard. The full SDT judgment can be read here.
The Tribunal analysed covert recordings and transcripts of meetings in which Khan spoke with undercover reporters posing as clients, conversing in both Punjabi and English. Questions were raised about the accuracy of the translations, and the Tribunal ultimately ruled that Khan's remarks had been misinterpreted due to language differences. It found no evidence that he had encouraged fraudulent claims, concluding instead that his interactions were brief introductory meetings rather than legal advice or misconduct.
The judgment states at paragraph 8.35: "The section of the video which troubled Tribunal the most was the point where the 'uncle' asked whether they should 'go for political' and the Respondent replied with a nod and repeating the word 'political.' Whilst this could be taken as an example of the Respondent encouraging a political narrative it had to be viewed holistically within the context of this being an overall 'meet and greet'. The Tribunal found that this part of the exchange did not have the necessary quality of something which could fairly be described as 'advice' and the Tribunal was not convinced that, absent any other associated remarks, it could be said to been encouraging a false narrative to be put forward."
Also considered by the SDT were character references from professional colleagues, former employees, and clients, which attested to Khan's professional and personal qualities. These references highlighted Khan's long history of assisting immigrants legally and his propensity to reject unmeritorious cases. The Tribunal found Mr Khan to be a credible witness and accepted his concerns regarding the validity of those attending his office during the undercover meetings
At paragraphs 8.38 and 8.39, the SDT concluded: "When taken individually or viewed in its totality there was nothing within the material seen and read by the Tribunal which would permit it to make an adverse finding against the Respondent. Whilst there were issues which may have raised understandable concerns with the regulator, the matters did not, on the balance of probabilities, convince the Tribunal that the Respondent deliberately gave advice that encouraged a false narrative. Accordingly, the Tribunal did not find the allegation made out on the facts and it did not find any breach of the SRA Principles."
Mr Khan's legal team applied for costs to be awarded against the SRA, arguing that the regulator had failed to conduct a thorough investigation before intervening against Rashid and Rashid. However, the SDT concluded that the SRA had acted appropriately in bringing the case and regulators should not be discouraged from fulfilling their duties due to the potential risk of adverse costs orders. The Tribunal found no evidence that the SRA had acted improperly or unreasonably in pursuing the case and rejected Mr Khan's application for costs.
Mr Khan stated that his career had been destroyed, his financial situation severely impacted, and he had suffered significant health problems due to the SRA's premature intervention, which had prevented him from practising as a solicitor since the summer of 2023.