By Sheila Mckenzie-
The High Court was told that The Solicitors Regulation Authority’s decision to intervene into solicitor Soophia Khan’s Leicester practice was fundamentally flawed because the regulator elevated a technical issue into grounds for suspecting dishonesty, the High Court has heard.
Khan, a former prominent solicitor, who also commented on television, is currently in prison after being found liable for contempt earlier this month for breaching two High Court orders requiring her to deliver up client files, is seeking an order requiring the SRA to withdraw its intervention from last August into herself and her Leicester practice Sophie Khan & Co over suspicions of dishonesty and alleged rule breaches.
The stand out solicitor who specialized in bringing actions against the police following taser deployments has been under investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) over suspicions of dishonesty.
The SRA confirmed at the time its intervention in the practice of Sophia Khan, and closed down her Leicester practice ‘Sophie Khan & Co Ltd’.
The regulator told The Eye Of Media.Com that those investigations are ongoing, and it can’t comment further about the case. They had many several attempts to get files from Khan that were relevant to their investigations, but were declined at every stage.
They confirmed that at the time they had reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Khan as the sole manager of the business. Their allegation that Khan and the firm had failed to comply with the SRA Principles, Code of Conduct and accounts rules had led to her being jailed. The court told her she wouldn’t be released before she completely co-operated with The requirements of the SRA.
Ms Khan also runs a Twitter account called ‘Taser Lawyer’. A description in its bio reads: ‘Solicitor with a specialist in Taser-related injuries and the country’s legal expert on Tased Law’.
The original news of the allegations against her came on the same day (25th August) that Khan took part in an interview hosted by Times Radio about the recommendations the IOPC made following their report on the use of tasers by police officers.
41-year-old Khan is also the director of the Police Action Centre, which provides free advice for the public, protestors and prisoners who wish to pursue an action against the police or other ‘state body’.
In January this year, the SRA won a High Court dispute against Khan over its request for documents as part of their detailed investigation into the firm.
Khan claimed she had dropped off the files in person at SRA headquarters, but the court found the delivery of the documents had not happened as she described.
Yesterday, Sir Gerald Barling, sitting as a judge of the Chancery Division in the Rolls Building, heard submissions from Khan’s barrister, Mark James, on why the SRA’s intervention was ‘fundamentally flawed and also disproportionate’, and was taken through the regulator’s grounds for suspecting dishonesty.
One of the ‘sub grounds’ was ‘mixed money paid into the office account’, the court heard.
James said the SRA’s complaint seemed to be that Khan ‘should have followed procedures to the letter’. However, he told the court this was ‘not an occasion where Ms Khan dipped her hand into client money and made off with it, a classic dishonesty case’.
He said: ‘The SRA have elevated a technical issue into dishonesty. They have not taken account of a solicitor’s equitable charge over the fruits of the litigation.’
Another ‘sub ground’ related to delivery of files to the SRA. James said this ground turned on an earlier court finding that Khan had not proven that she had delivered case files to the SRA’s Birmingham office by May 2019.
James said there was no finding of dishonesty by the master. ‘Secondly, we say [the master] would have reached a different conclusion if she had looked at different evidence which she ruled inadmissible because Ms Khan did not produce it at the hearing. There was no evidence from the receptionist who, on Ms Khan’s case, received delivery of the original files.’
The hearing is expected to conclude today. However, Barling indicated he is likely to reserve judgment.