A solicitor and law firm owner who acted on a failed property development where his wife was a director of the developer has been suspended for six months.
Waheed Ur Rehman Mian told the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal he had not been aware that his wife Sobi Waheed had been a director of Leicester developer Aronex and so denied acting without independence. The tribunal found this defence ‘fundamentally flawed’.
Aronex was the developer on a block of new-build flats in Leicester city centre which were made available for reservation in 2017. Planning approval was secured in 2019 and the properties sold quickly, but the company could not begin construction and went into administration in the same year.
All the transactions followed the same format, with 70% of the purchase price paid to Aronex prior to completion. Mian’s firm, east London practice M-R Solicitors, was instructed to handle the exchange of contracts and payment of deposits, but buyers and investors were not told about his wife’s link and that two of the firm’s staff were also Aronex directors.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority said Mian, a solicitor for 22 years, represented clients where he knew or ought to have known there was a conflict of interest. He admitted failing to disclose relevant connections with Aronex and also failing to supervise a trainee solicitor who had conduct of the matters. He accepted having no expertise in conveyancing matters and that the transactions carried a high risk due to their being off-plan.
But he told the tribunal he became aware of his wife’s connection with Aronex only in mid-2019 and that she had been a ‘sleeping partner’ in the business. He had no control over the failure of the development and he stressed that client losses were compensated by his insurers.
The tribunal found that Mian had previously stated that his wife was a silent director and shareholder and that the failure to advise clients of the conflict was an error and oversight caused by the strains of a busy practice. ‘[He] either knew of the conflict, or as an experienced solicitor ought to have been aware,’ said the tribunal. ‘In such circumstances, [he] must have known that such a conflict was a mandatory prohibition on the firm acting for these clients. The firm should never have taken them on.’
It was found Mian acted with a lack of integrity over more than two years. He had shown a lack of insight into the importance of his regulatory obligations, which called into question his ability to practise.
He was suspended for six months and ordered to pay the SRA’s £40,218 costs in full.
