A solicitor who acted for both sides in a property transaction, including an elderly and vulnerable client who was charged an elevated fee, has been suspended from practice for nine months by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and ordered to pay costs of £21,129. In a separate case, a junior solicitor has been suspended for a year by the tribunal after editing an email address in correspondence with a client ‘in a moment of panic’.
Yusuf Jamal Siddiqui, a sole practitioner in Golders Green, London, acted for both the donor and recipient in the transfer of an elderly and vulnerable client’s sole residence to a neighbour for nil consideration. Siddiqui failed to conduct an adequate assessment of the elderly client’s capacity, and charged a fee significantly in excess of the firm’s standard rates.
Michael Goodwin, a junior solicitor in the residential property team at Midlands firm Talbots Law, had been qualified for less than two years when he edited an incorrectly typed email address in an email chain with a client. After sending an email to the incorrect address, he then forwarded the original email to the client after fixing the mistake in the address, with the message, ‘I understand you’ve not received the attached’.
The tribunal noted in its written judgment:
“The Respondent’s dishonesty was confined solely to one element of a single email, the alteration of the email address. Critically, the message sent to the client was not misleading. This amendment took only a few seconds, making it a brief, isolated incident rather than a prolonged or sustained act.
“The conduct would have resulted in minimum benefit to the Respondent, possibly the avoidance of embarrassment as a result of the initial error and/or the consequences of what might have been a data breach.
“Ultimately, the client suffered no detriment, and the transaction remained unaffected. No client funds were involved, and the dishonesty did not relate to the substance of the client’s matter. No harm was caused to any party, and no actual harm resulted from the Respondent’s conduct.”
Following the incident, Goodwin resigned and reported himself to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Medical evidence submitted to the tribunal was accepted as possibly contributing to impulsive decision-making when confronted with difficult circumstances. ‘Nevertheless’, the judgment continued, ‘the Tribunal recognized the necessity to safeguard both the public and the reputation of the legal profession by curtailing the Respondent’s right to practice, thereby mitigating the risk of future harm. However, it concluded that neither of these objectives justified striking him off the Roll’.
“Accordingly, bearing in mind the seriousness of the misconduct, the Tribunal determined that the appropriate sanction would be a suspension from practice for a period of 12 months.”
Goodwin was also ordered to pay cost of £12,500.
In the case of Siddiqui, the tribunal found that he had failed to apply the correct legal and professional framework when considering his client’s capacity to give instructions. The judgment noted:
“Despite recognising the need for caution—reflected in his own reasoning for charging an elevated fee—the Respondent failed to undertake a structured assessment or to obtain expert input to assess his client’s capacity. He did not consider whether a Lasting Power of Attorney was in place, nor did he take steps to safeguard the client’s continued occupation of the property following the proposed transfer.”
Siddiqui, who was admitted as a solicitor in 2010, acted for and was instructed by Client A in relation to the transfer of property to Ms Z, a neighbour, for whom he also acted. In his submissions to the tribunal, Siddiqui said both parties understood the arrangement and he had addressed any potential conflict of interest to the best of his ability.
He had informed Client A that the cost of conveyancing would be £15,000 – considerably in excess of his usual charged of £1,200 – justified due to ‘the very special’ nature of the matter.
A Deed of Gift was entered into between the parties, with the TR1 prepared to transfer the property as intended. The matter was brought to the attention of the Solicitors Regulation Authority by Howell Jones Solicitors, a firm with Lasting Power of Attorney for the property and financial affairs of Client A and a decades-long professional relationship. The firm had been alerted by Client A’s bank to suspicious account activity, including two payments to Siddiqui totalling £6,000.
Howell Jones Solicitors contacted HM Land Registry, who put a hold on the application and the matter did not complete. After being informed of the Lasting Power of Attorney, Siddiqui took immediate steps to reverse the property transfer. All sums paid by Client A were refunded.
The tribunal concluded that Siddiqui’s culpability was high and his conduct in overcharging financially motivated: ‘…the fee represented approximately 25% of his annual turnover and was not transparently calculated. This aspect of the misconduct involved a degree of planning and professional control. It was not spontaneous, nor did it arise from oversight.’ It also concluded there was ‘a significant breach of trust inherent in the conduct’, adding:
“As an experienced solicitor, he ought to have been fully aware of his obligations and the gravity of the circumstances.”
The written decision acknowledged Siddiqui ‘had already suffered significant reputational, financial and professional consequences as a result of the misconduct and the ensuing proceedings’ and following a period of reflection had ‘identified his shortcomings in his practice and began a refresher course which he started in 2024 to update and improve his knowledge base and skill set’.
“The Tribunal found that the misconduct created a serious risk of harm. The transaction exposed Client A—a vulnerable and elderly individual—to the potential loss of his home. The conflict of interest was real and immediate, and the Respondent’s failure to recognise it represented a material dereliction of duty. That omission placed the client at significant risk and undermined public trust in the profession’s duty to protect vulnerable individuals.”
Taking into account the seriousness of the misconduct and the need to uphold public confidence, the tribunal determined that a fixed-term suspension of nine months was the appropriate and proportionate sanction, with costs of £21,129.60.
5 responses
Leaving aside the acting for both sides matter (as frankly what were they thinking) generally speaking conveyancing is a very hard industry. We are the lowest paid in the legal sector, we take in the highest volume of cases in the legal sector we take in the lowest fees in the legal sector. We are under the most pressure to act for the lender and the client and maintain relationships with client brokers agents etc. Our role has changed massively over the years and a lot of what we do is based on customer service. The advent of technology emails and calls brings greater pressure especially when clients are happy to call us or email us 9-5 even when they are supposed to be working. Fewer and fewer want to do conveyancing and more are leaving the industry, the support is simply not there from firms and the industry body and management. We take on a lot of responsibility personally.
Generally speaking I have a great deal of sympathy with those under pressure with high volumes and being chased by all and sundry with little management support. I do not know if this is the case here, I know very little about the law firm and their ways of working and their how their firm operates so this is not directed at them. However I look at cases like this and think where is the support from firms where is the support from governing bodies. For me, my mental health is at the floor at the moment due to this job. I am suffering. I have worked for quite a few firms and nothing ever changes to support conveyancers. People do silly things when under pressure. We need to find the root cause of that pressure and deal with it.
I said at the SRA proposal to lower conveyancing fees that it was a race to the bottom, stealing is absolutely not tolerable, but equally those that appear to govern are not acting in the best interests of solicitors and solicitors need a union , they have no way of fighting back against selfish and inconsiderate governance. Doctors go on strike, so do nurses, but what can solicitors do? They have very little rights.
Allowed by the CLC. What does that tell us?
So the solicitor who clearly was guilty of misconduct and taking advantage of an elderly client gets a shorter suspension than the one who forwarded an email to the correct address which was obviously a genuine error under pressure. Am i missing something here…
Whilst I cannot say about lawyers in other fields, conveyancing personnel are treated like dirt by many clients. They think that by paying fees, they own the soul of the conveyancing practitioner. We are given no respect. Some tend to say words to the effect, “do your job, I’m paying your fees”.
A lot of firms are also to blame where they employ unqualified staff and the service a client receives is awful. I know this because as a locum solicitor I frequently have to deal with requisitions from HMLR where the matter should have been dealt better during the pre-exchange stage. Sufficient forethought is not given e.g. on a transfer of equity where a joint transferor who chose not to be represented presents a problem to the firm because an ID1 wasn’t obtained. The transferor who’ve got their money won’t be interested in helping. You then have a problem registering your human client and perhaps a new lender as mortgagee. One scenario of many where sufficient forethought would have prevented the firm from being negligent.