SDT finds 'no case to answer' against lawyer accused of forging documents

A Yorkshire lawyer accused of forging signatures on immigration applications has had the allegations against him dismissed by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), which ruled 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 from being employed by any law firm after he was accused of forging several signatures on immigration application forms at Leeds-based Kher Solicitors.

Khan was dismissed from the firm in November 2013 following an 'emotionally charged disciplinary meeting' with the firm's principal, Satpal Roth, who claimed Khan admitted forging her signature and that of a colleague. She subsequently reported him to the SRA.

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.

Regulatory lawyer, Matthew Rowley, of Harrowells Solicitors, who represented Khan, told the SDT hearing in July that Khers had failed to investigate the allegations and that those involved in the disciplinary meeting had lost track of what was said.

The SDT heard that notes from the meeting with Roth, taken by another solicitor, were confused and contradicted the allegations that Khan had admitted forging the signatures, with very clear records of his denials.

Both Roth and her colleague admitted under cross-examination by Rowley that the notes were unclear and that they had no hard evidence Khan had forged any signatures.

Other staff, including an administrator, had access to the forms and could have forged the signatures. but Roth confirmed that no other proper investigation or interviews had taken place.

Rowley told the tribunal that one forged signature was on part of a form which did not need a solicitor's certification. Roth admitted Khan knew this and would have had no reason to forge an unnecessary signature.

The tribunal threw out the case without having to hear the defence, after Rowley said the lack of evidence showed there was no case to answer. Khan was awarded £5,000 costs to be paid by the SRA. In addition, the regulator incurred more than £20,000 of its own legal costs.

Following the judgment, Rowley commented: '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 SDT.

The regulatory specialist added that though Khan had been vindicated, his reputation had nonetheless been tarnished by the SRA's action and that he had 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.'

Rowley remarked that this case was a 'worrying example' of the SRA exercising its 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,' he continued.

'This case, and in particular the financial implications for the legal profession, is a signal that the SRA needs to raise it standards,' observed Rowley. 'The SRA cannot expect to have the trust of the legal profession or the public until it does so.'

John van der Luit-Drummond is deputy editor for Solicitors Journal
john.vanderluit@solicitorsjournal.co.uk | @JvdLD