Nazeer v Solicitors Regulation Authority

A solicitor may facilitate an abuse of the court’s process by failing to prevent it, where the solicitor has responsibility for managing the firm and has ignored relevant warnings. A disciplinary allegation may be proved even though an unnecessary averment within it is not established. The essential question is whether the pleaded core misconduct is proved and whether the respondent has had a fair opportunity to meet the case. A COLP’s regulatory responsibilities may be relevant to whether inadequate management facilitated abusive litigation, without creating vicarious liability for employees’ misconduct. The High Court should respect an expert disciplinary tribunal’s assessment of sanction and interfere only where the decision is clearly inappropriate.

Malik Mohammed Nazeer appealed against findings and sanctions imposed by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on 1 February 2018. The Tribunal found that he had facilitated abusive judicial review claims concerning two immigration clients, contrary to Principles 1 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 and Outcome 5.6 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011. It fined him £20,000 and imposed restrictions on his practice.

The appellant argued that he had neither prepared nor supervised the claims, had no personal knowledge of their defects, had not acted recklessly, and had not been charged with inadequate management or breach of the COLP’s duties. The central issues were whether the allegation was properly proved on the pleaded case, whether the Tribunal’s decision was unjust because of procedural irregularity, and whether the fine and conditions were clearly inappropriate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal was entitled to find that the appellant had facilitated abuse of the court’s process and had thereby breached Principles 1 and 6 and failed to achieve Outcome 5.6.
2. The natural and ordinary meaning of an allegation against two respondents is that its elements must be proved against each respondent, absent express words to the contrary. However, the Tribunal was entitled to construe the essential case as concerning the appellant’s failure, as a director and COLP, to manage the firm adequately despite repeated judicial warnings.
3. Facilitation is not confined to positive acts. In an appropriate case, inaction may make an action or process easier. The appellant had responsibility for general management, had received serious warnings concerning the firm’s immigration work, and had done nothing in response. His failure to exercise control and to address the systemic problem could amount to facilitation.
4. The words alleging that the appellant knew or should have known that particular claims were unarguable were unnecessary to establishing the core breach. Applying the principle illustrated by Nna v Health and Care Professions Council [2018] EWHC 2967 (Admin), an allegation may be proved even though an unnecessary particular is not. The appellant had understood the case he had to meet, and no serious procedural irregularity had caused injustice.
5. This was not a case of liability merely arising from partnership or employment. The appellant’s own management failures, his COLP role, the repeated warnings, and his failure to act provided an evidential basis for the finding.
6. The fine of £20,000 and the conditions were not clearly inappropriate. The High Court must give considerable respect to the Tribunal’s expert assessment of sanction, as explained in Salsbury v Law Society [2009] 2 All ER 487. The reasons for the conditions appeared from the Tribunal’s findings, including the appellant’s lack of insight, and justified continuing oversight.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision dated 1 February 2018 was dismissed. The fine and practice conditions were upheld.