Disciplinary Record - Mohammed Ullah

Decision - Agreement

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement

Outcome date: 29 August 2023

Published date: 5 September 2023

Firm details

Firm or organisation at time of matters giving rise to outcome

Name: Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

Address(es): 5 Fleet Place, LONDON, EC4M 7RD, England

Firm ID: 420625

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by agreement.

Decision details

1. Agreed outcome

1.1 Mohammed Ullah (Mr Ullah), a former employee of Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (the Firm), agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

1. to the SRA making an order under section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (a section 43 order) in relation to Mr Ullah that, from the date of this agreement:
   1. no solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with his practice as a solicitor
   2. no employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the solicitor's practice
   3. no recognised body shall employ or remunerate him
   4. no manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the business of that body
   5. no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to be a manager of the body
   6. no recognised body or manager or employee of such body shall permit him to have an interest in the body
      except in accordance with the SRA's prior permission
2. to the publication of this agreement
3. he will pay the costs of the investigation of £300.

2. Summary of facts

2.1 Mr Ullah was employed as a Senior Service Desk Specialist in the Firm's IT department. He was employed in a business support role to assist colleagues resolve IT problems.

2.2 Between August 2022 to January 2023, Mr Ullah sent a number of emails from his work account to the Coroner. At all times these emails were to do with a private and personal matter and entirely unrelated to his role at the Firm.

2.3 Throughout his correspondence he altered his job title to incorrectly display his job roles as 'Senior Service Desk Manager' and 'Senior'.

2.4 All of Mr Ullah's email signatures included ‘For and on behalf of Charles Russell Speechlys LLP'.

2.5 On 6 January 2023, Mr Ullah sent an email to the Coroner in which he said:

• that he worked in a very large law firm
• that he had spoken to others in the firm (Mr Ullah describing them as 'ruthless Seniors') and
• those others in the firm had advised him on the matter before the Coroner.

2.6 The Coroner was concerned about the content of Mr Ullah's email and because it came from an email account in the name of the Firm, reported it to one of the Firm's partners.

2.7 The Firm carried out its own internal investigation which identified an escalatory pattern of behaviour in the emails sent to the Coroner from Mr Ullah's work account. During the investigation, Mr Ullah admitted to the Firm that he did not speak to nor obtain legal advice from anyone at the Firm and that the email he sent on 6 January 2023, was inaccurate and misleading.

2.8 On 1 February 2023, the Firm terminated Mr Ullah's employment following a gross misconduct hearing and on the same date it reported Mr Ullah's conduct to the SRA.

3. Admissions

3.1 Mr Ullah makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:

1. he used his work email address and deliberately changed his job title with the intention that his emails received more attention from the Coroner.
2. in his email to the Coroner, dated 6 January 2023, he misled the Coroner by stating that he had obtained legal advice from the Firm when he had not.
3. this pattern of behaviour culminating in the email of 6 January 2023 in which he made dishonest statements, means that it is undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice.

4. Why a section 43 order is appropriate

4.1 The SRA's Enforcement Strategy and its guidance on how it regulates non-authorised persons, sets out its approach to using section 43 orders to control where a non-authorised person can work.

4.2 When considering whether a section 43 order is appropriate in this matter, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Ullah and the following mitigation which he has put forward:

1. the impact of his personal circumstances affecting his judgment when he communicated from his work email account.
2. he has cooperated with the SRA's investigation and shown insight and remorse.

4.3 The SRA and Mr Mohammed Ullah agree that a section 43 order is appropriate because:

3. he is not a solicitor.
4. his employment or remuneration at the Firm means that he was involved in a legal practice and
5. he sent consecutive emails from his account in the name of the Firm, containing misleading and dishonest statements, which was an act or default in relation to legal practice, and one which makes it undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice.

4.4 Mr Ullah repeatedly used his work account to ensure that the recipient would read and take full note of the content of his emails. Making misleading and dishonest statements in such emails, diminishes the trust and confidence that the public places in the Firm, all those who work in or under its name and in the safe delivery of legal services.

5. Publication

5.1 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory process. Mr Ullah agrees to the publication of this agreement.

6. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement

6.1 Mr Ullah agrees that he will not deny the admissions made in this agreement or act in any way which is inconsistent with it.

7. Costs

7.1 Mr Ullah agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of £300. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.