A solicitor has been struck off after his Southampton firm’s ‘shambolic conduct’ of judicial review proceedings attracted scathing criticism from the High Court.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority began investigating Mohammed Ekramul Hoque Mazumder, the owner and manager of Heans Solicitors Limited, after a referral by the High Court following a judicial review claim. Heans had sought a JR of a September 2018 decision of Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede to refuse its client permission to appeal in an asylum/human rights claim.
In April 2019, Mr Justice Andrews rejected the claim as totally without merit. His decision commenced with the comment: ‘There is so much wrong with this claim that it is difficult to know where to begin’.
Among the problems identified by the judge was the fact the grounds for JR document made no reference to a decision by Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede, despite it being asserted in the claim form that this was the decision against which the claim was being brought. The Upper Tribunal also had no record of Kebede having made any decision in a case relating to the firm’s client.
Andrews concluded by directing that Mazumder be contacted and asked to show cause as to why he should not be brought to court to explain the ‘shambolic conduct of these proceedings’.
Mazumder told the judge he was very sorry and apologised for the errors made by Salauddin Khan, a non-solicitor, who Mazumder said had wrongly submitted a claim for JR without his permission. He added: ‘We rarely deal with judicial review cases’.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found Khan was vulnerable because of his immigration status. Mazumder had ‘bullied’ Khan and had ‘sought to place the blame for his misconduct’ onto him.
Mazumder later accepted he did not tell the truth in his witness statement to the High Court, where he stated the JR was the first on which Khan had independently worked.
Mazumder admitted that, between January 2018 and July 2019, he failed to ensure staff at the firm were adequately supervised in relation to JR claims and that the firm had effective systems and controls in place. The SDT also found Mazumder had falsely claimed in his witness statement that the firm had taken advice upon JR applications and had them drafted by counsel. Documents in the JR claim had been submitted without being reviewed by Mazumder due to time pressures.
‘Mr Mazumder was motivated by his desire to protect himself and his firm, thereby protecting his income stream,’ the tribunal found. ‘His actions were planned. He made a number of assertions to the High Court which he knew to be false and misleading.’
Heans, which closed in April 2021, was based at Mazumder’s home address in Southampton.
Khan was deemed to have been coerced into misconduct and his culpability was low, leading the tribunal to conclude that it would be unfair and disproportionate to impose a sanction on him.
