Close This website uses modern features that are not supported by your browser. Click here for more information.
Please upgrade to a modern browser to view this website properly. Google Chrome Mozilla Firefox Opera Safari
your legal news hub
Sub Menu
Search

Search

Filter
Filter
Filter
A A A

UK firm sanctioned for dishonest asylum claims

Publish date: 20 February 2018
Issue Number: 4403
Diary: Legalbrief Today
Category: Immigration

Two brothers have been sanctioned by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) after the UK Government raised concerns about certain law firms making a disproportionately high number of 'totally without merit' judicial review claims in immigration and asylum cases. According to a Law Gazette report, the Home Office informed the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) that the firm at the centre of the tribunal case Solicitors Regulation Authority v Malik Mohammed Nazeer and Malik Mohammed Saleem submitted 35 cases between April 2014 and July 2015 that were judged to be totally without merit. The SRA alleged that, between January 2014 and December 2015, the brothers brought or facilitated judicial review claims on behalf of clients in circumstances when they knew or should have known that the claim was not properly arguable and its true purpose was to thwart or delay lawful removal or procure release from lawful detention. The brothers were accused of deliberately or recklessly failing to warn some clients that any claims they brought were bound to fail or be out of time. The tribunal found that Saleem's misconduct arose from an 'overzealous desire to help clients that he perceived to be vulnerable. There was an element of breach of trust in that clients had trusted him to correctly advise them as to their prospects of a successful challenge by way of judicial review'. Saleem was suspended from practice for 18 months. The tribunal said the firm's management system, for which Nazeer was responsible, was 'limited and chaotic'. Nazeer was fined £20 000, ordered to pay £13 014 costs, and will be subject to practising conditions.

Full Law Gazette report

Ruling

We use cookies to give you a personalised experience that suits your online behaviour on our websites. Otherwise, you may click here to learn more, or learn how to block or disable cookies. Disabling cookies might cause you to experience difficulties on our website as some functionality relies on cookie information. You can change your mind at any time by visiting “Cookie Preferences”. Any personal data about you will be used as described in our Privacy Policy.