A solicitor has successfully defended his conduct at a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) hearing after being accused of acting ‘recklessly’ and failing to act in the client’s best interests when instructed on the quick sale of a property by a client whose capacity was later called into question.
The seller, known as Client A, had responded to a newspaper advertisement offering cash for homes from KPM Properties. Client A was 81 years old and had owned the freehold property since 1966. Respondent Mohammed Israr, a consultant solicitor at Lawrence Kurt Solicitors Ltd at the time of the allegations, acted for Client A who had independently negotiated the sale of the property for £40,000, despite an estimated value of £195,000.
Instructed on the recommendation of KPM Properties’ solicitors Cambridge Solicitors LLP, Israr moved the transaction forward, noting the request for immediate exchange of contracts, and issued a client care letter on the day of instruction. During two short WhatsApp video calls (at 13:15 and 15:55), he confirmed Client A’s instructions, explained the binding nature of exchange, and verified his identity. Exchange of contracts occurred later that same day. with completion scheduled within 28 days.
A contemporaneous attendance note recorded the following:
“WhatsApp video call to verify [Client A]. Content of letter to exchange explained, as well as ensuring [Client A] is happy to sell at £40k (reasoning being re possession/unable to re-finance).”
In early January, Israr continued to correspond with the buyer’s solicitors regarding completion. However, at the end of January 2023, Client A’s daughter became aware of the sale, contacting Israr expressing concern that her father did not want to proceed. Israr explained the contractual position but agreed to act in Client A’s best interests. Later that day, he informed the buyer’s solicitors that completion would not proceed, returned the funds and said he would close the file.
In March, the buyer’s solicitors issued a letter of claim including a notice to complete within ten working days.
By this stage Client A was being represented pro-bono by another solicitor who immediately raised concerns that Client A simply didn’t understand his own terms and conditions, never mind the implications of the property sale, and recommended a capacity assessment should be undertaken.
A ‘mini mental health assessment’ concluded Client A had normal capacity for someone of his age and showed ‘no signs of dementia as such.’ Unhappy with the result, Client A’s daughter began making arrangements for him to undergo a more detailed assessment in the private sector, contacting the buyer’s firm to advise Client A was hard of hearing, had reduced sight and displayed confusion and significant memory loss.
The family raised ‘significant concerns’ about the circumstances leading up to the agreement to sell the significantly undervalued property to KPM Properties, which would have effectively rendered Client A homeless. Client A died in September 2023 before the assessment could be undertaken.
The solicitor working pro-bono complained to the SRA in March 2023 resulting in the SDT investigation.
The SRA alleged Israr had:
- Failed to undertake proper enquiries regarding the transaction.
- Failed to properly advise Client A on the risks and consequences of the sale.
- Failed to take account of Client A’s needs and circumstances.
Dismissing the claims, the SDT said Israr might have made additional enquiries, or kept fuller notes, but these were matters of good practice, not regulatory obligations. Client A had independently negotiated the sale and given clear instructions to proceed quickly, understanding that he would need alternative accommodation. There were no indicators of confusion or incapacity during interactions; it was reasonable for Israr to believe Client A had capacity. The scope of the retainer did not require financial or valuation advice, nor testing the client’s understanding line by line.
It was a ‘sad case’, acknowledged the tribunal, and one which highlighted the pitfalls of quick cash sales operating outside the procedural norms of conveyancing, but it was legitimate practice nonetheless. The tribunal emphasised solicitors must act within the scope of their retainer and cannot be expected to second-guess clear instructions from a client with capacity. Israr personally was ‘credible’, acted consistently with instructions, and may have benefited from stronger supervision.
The tribunal therefore found that they should be dismissed. There was no application for costs by either the applicant or the respondent.
3 responses
This is a shockingly bad decision, especially given the previous regulatory intervention involving this same Solicitor and the patent vulnerability of this elderly gentleman (now deceased). I hope the SRA appeal this; it would be the right thing to do
It’s very difficult to comprehend a situation in which a solicitor can be said to be acting in his client’s best interests, when a property valued at £195,000 is being sold for £40,000 and the client would then become homeless. I have had a situation in which an old client “wanted” to sell his property in circumstances which would have resulted in a similar outcome; I refused to act and did my best to point out to the client that the transaction had all the hallmarks of an elderly person (him) being taken advantage of. I went further: I reported it to the local social services department as a safeguarding issue.
The sale did proceed, not with me acting, and the client was duly robbed, not only by the sale at a low price, but also by £80,000 being removed from his bank account. The matter is now (posthumously) in the hands of the police and I shall assist the late client’s family as far as I am able.
In the case of the decision by the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal, which is the subject of this posting, the SDT will have considered the matter on the basis of criminal liability (i.e. beyond reasonable doubt). We do not know whether it will be appealed by the SRA, but a civil claim for damages, which requires a lower standard of proof (on the balance of probabilities) might well have an altogether different outcome! Let’s hope the solicitor concerned, and the firm at which he is said to have been a consultant, have kept their professional indemnity insurers fully informed from the moment a complaint was raised.
Did the property sale complete in the end or is that unknown?