Disciplinary Record - Auran Khattak

Mr Christopher Stephen Moss

, 

Miss Helen Carter-Shaw

, 

Mr Lee Andrew Gledhill

, 

Mr Steve Harpum

, 

Miss Zoe Alice Saunders

Between January 2009 and 30 April 2012, Auran Khattak, an unregistered barrister, who was also admitted to the Roll of Solicitors in 2000, engaged in conduct, whether in pursuit of his profession or otherwise, which was discreditable to a barrister as set out in allegations 1.1 to 1.6 and 4.1 to 7 of the Solicitor’s Disciplinary Tribunal Judgment (“the Allegations), listed in Schedule 1 to this Charge Sheet.
On 25 July 2012, following a hearing, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (“the SDT”) found the Allegations to be proved and that Auran Khattak was guilty of professional misconduct. The SDT ordered that he be struck off the Roll of Solicitors.
Between January 2009 and 30 April 2012, Auran Khattak, an unregistered barrister, who was also admitted to the Roll of Solicitors in 2000, engaged in conduct, whether in pursuit of his profession or otherwise, which was likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession or the administration of justice or otherwise bring the legal profession into disrepute as set out in allegations 1.1 to 1.6 and 4.1 to 7 of the Solicitor’s Disciplinary Tribunal Judgment (“the Allegations”). The Allegations are listed in Schedule 1 to this Charge Sheet.
On 25 July 2012, following a hearing, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (“the SDT”) found the Allegations to be proved and that Auran Khattak was guilty of professional misconduct. The SDT ordered that he be struck off the Roll of Solicitors
Schedule 1 (referred to above)
The Allegations were:
1.1. In breach of Rule 32(1) of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998 (“the Accounts Rules”), Auran Khattak failed to keep books of account properly written up at all times;
1.2. In breach of Rule 32(7) of the Accounts Rules Auran Khattak failed to carry out reconciliations in accordance with the requirements thereof;
1.3. In breach of Rule 22 of the said Accounts Rules Auran Khattak withdrew money from client account in circumstances other than permitted by the said Rule;
1.4. Auran Khattak breached Rule 1 of the Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007 in either or both of the following respects;
- he failed to act in the best interests of clients;
- he allowed his independence to be compromised;
1.5. In breach of Rule 5.01 of the said Code Auran Khattak failed to make arrangements for the effective management of his firm to provide for either or both of the following:
- compliance with the duties of the principal to exercise appropriate supervision over all staff and ensure adequate supervision and direction of client matters;
- control of undertakings;
1.6. In breach of Rule 10.05 of the said Code Auran Khattak failed to fulfil an undertaking and/or in breach of Rule 1.02 of the said Code failed to act with integrity.
4.1. Auran Khattak failed to pay the premium due for indemnity insurance for the indemnity year 2009-2010 to Capita (which manages the Assigned Risks Pool (“ARP”) on behalf of the Solicitors Regulatory Authority (“SRA”) within the prescribed period for payment and is in policy default in breach of Rule 16.2 of the Solicitors Indemnity Rules 2009;
4.2. Auran Khattak had failed to pay the run-off premium within the prescribed period for payment and is in policy default in breach of Rule 16.2 of the Solicitors Indemnity Insurance Rules 2009.
5.1. In breach of Rule 1 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007 Auran Khattak failed to act with integrity (Rule 1.02); and/or
- behaved in a way that diminished the trust placed in him or the profession (Rule 1.06);
5.2. In breach of Rule 5.01 of the said Code Auran Khattak failed to make arrangements for the effective management of his firm to provide for:
- the control of undertakings; and/or
- compliance with the duties of a principal to exercise appropriate supervision over all staff and ensure adequate supervision and direction of client matters;
5.3. In breach of Rule 10.05 of the said Code Auran Khattak failed to fulfil undertakings dated 25 January 2010, and 9 and 10 February 2010 (or any of them);
5.4. In breach of Rule 20.05 of the said Code Auran Khattak failed to deal with the SRA in an open prompt and cooperative way.
6.1. Auran Khattak failed to deliver an Accountant’s report for the period 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009, due on or before 30 June 2010;
6.2. Auran Khattak failed to deliver his Accountant’s report for the period 1 January 2010 to 29 January 2010 due on or before the 29 July 2010;
7. In breach of Rule 1.02 of the Code Auran Khattak wrote a false and misleading letter to the SRA dated 9 July 2010 in which he stated that Caffrey and Co ceased to hold or deal with client money on the 29 January 2010 whereas this was not so

_