By Ashley Young-
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has accused a solicitor of potentially committing criminal acts by by breaching the Solicitors Act 1974.
The SRA applied for an injunction against a prominent solicitor, Soophia Khan, to prevent her acting as a lawyer after her practising certificate was suspended over suspicions of dishonesty..
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
Soophia Khan- an established high profile solicitor and former chair of the Law Society’s civil justice committee, was suspended in August after the SRA intervened in relation to her Leicester practice Sophie Khan & Co Limited.
The High Court had granted the Solicitors Regulation Authority access to a firm’s documents after the business and its owner were subject to intervention earlier this year.
The regulator had tried to engage with Soophia Khan, owner of Leicester practice Sophie Khan & Co Limited, with a view to its intervention agent gaining access to the files, but she had failed to co-operate with the investigation.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
In an application to the court last month, the SRA made its objectives clear to search for and seize documents, and redirect communications addressed to the firm.
The prominent solicitor who often features on legal matters in the media found herself in hot water following allegations she had acted dubiously in representing some of her clients.
She later announced that the firm had been taken over by a charity called Just for Public Ltd (JFP), adding: ‘Client work continues as normal’.
The High Court today heard that Khan and JFP may be ‘committing criminal offences under the Solicitors Act 1974 and the Legal Services Act 2007, as a result of Ms Khan carrying on reserved legal activities when she is not entitled to do so’.
Rupert Allen, for the SRA, said in written submissions that Khan claims to have transferred Sophie Khan & Co’s business to JFP ‘before the intervention and to be entitled to continue representing the former clients of [Sophie Khan & Co] through JFP as if the intervention has not occurred’.
‘A solicitor cannot avoid the consequences of an intervention into their practice by transferring their firm’s business and clients to an unregulated entity and continuing to represent clients as if nothing has happened,’ Allen said.
There is ‘overwhelming evidence’ that Khan has continued to represent her clients and those of Sophie Khan & Co, Allen said, including at an inquest and before Manchester County Court last month where a judge ruled that she did not have rights of audience.
Allen added Khan also relied on the ‘purported transfer’ of Sophie Khan & Co’s business ‘as a justification for her failure to produce documents connected with her and the firm’s practice to the SRA as she is legally obliged to do’ as a result of the SRA’s intervention.
The SRA has obtained orders from the High Court requiring Khan, Sophie Khan & Co and JFP to provide practice documents which have not been complied with, Allen said, and the SRA has issued committal proceedings against Khan ‘with a view to securing compliance with the orders’
James also asked Mr Justice Fancourt to rule on the proper interpretation of sections 13(3) and 15(3) of the Legal Services Act 2007, which he argued were unclear.
James indicated that Khan was willing to offer an undertaking to avoid the need for an injunction. Khan’s lawyers and the SRA will attempt to agree the wording of an undertaking overnight.
Mr Justice Fancourt indicated that he will give a ruling on the proper interpretation of sections 13(3) and 15(3) of the Legal Services Act 2007 tomorrow morning in any event.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar