A BRADFORD solicitor who is also a ward councillor in the district has been struck off and ordered to pay £25,000 following a disciplinary tribunal

Rizwana Jamil, a Labour councillor for the Bowling and Barkerend ward, qualified in 2001 and traded as RJ Solicitors from 2008, until the firm closed in May last year.

A judgement following the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal hearing, held in December 2020, said: “The tribunal found that the respondent had acted dishonestly on numerous occasions in respect of four allegations spanning 2015 and 2020.

“It further found that she was manifestly incompetent and reckless on numerous occasions over a protracted period of time.

“In light of those findings the tribunal determined that neither a reprimand, financial penalty, restrictions on practice nor a suspension order sufficiently met the seriousness of the misconduct.”

It thus concluded that the “appropriate and proportionate sanction” was to strike Ms Jamil off the Roll of Solicitors.

The hearing was told that in June 2015 ‘Client P’ instructed the firm to make an application to the Home Office for discretionary leave to remain in the UK.

In 2017, the client became concerned with the lack of progress and it eventually emerged in 2018 that the Home Office had not received the application, despite Ms Jamil telling her it had been sent.

While Ms Jamil had conduct of the case, she said she believed a paralegal had made the application, but admitted she had not checked the client’s file when responding to her.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) carried out an investigation into the firm, during which time Ms Jamil was said to have failed to respond to enquiries and provided “misleading and incorrect” information regarding the paralegal’s involvement in the matter and their employment status at the firm.

Ms Jamil said delays were borne out of “distress and panic” and explained that after her firm moved offices in early 2018, her filing was in a “state of disarray” and was unable to find all the information required.

She was also said to have provided “false and misleading” information on an insurance proposal in 2018 in that she failed to declare she had received any letters of complaints about the firm’s service, despite responding to complaints from Client P for over a year.

She said this was a “total oversight” and an “honest mistake”.

Ms Jamil also failed to disclose she was under investigation by the SRA and that the Legal Ombudsman had ordered her to pay compensation to Client P.

She claimed the mistakes were due to a “lack of care” and her insurance broker “pestering” her to complete the forms quickly which caused her to do so “in a rush”.

The tribunal concluded: “No solicitor acting with integrity would have completed the forms in the manner that she did.”

Accountants’ reports had not been obtained since 2014 and the decision not to do so “was motivated by the desire not to subject the firm to further forensic investigations which she knew would follow as a consequence”.

The judgement added: “That was, in the tribunal’s view, dishonest by the standards of the ordinary decent man.”

Ms Jamil’s counsel said she was “under no illusions as to the likely consequences” - being struck off - and “appeared in deference to the tribunal in order to explain why she had conducted herself in the manner that she did”.

He added that Ms Jamil had closed the firm, “cooperated and engaged fully with the tribunal proceedings and made ‘fulsome admission’ in advance of the substantive hearing.”

In a statement issued to the Telegraph & Argus, Ms Jamil said: “I am disappointed with the outcome of the hearing at the solicitors tribunal.

“The rules which solicitors are bound to observe go far beyond standards of conduct expected of most occupations.

“While I fully accept the shortcomings in the management of my firm, and am extremely embarrassed by this, I do not accept that I ever acted dishonestly and I made no personal gain.”

She added: “I recognise how I left myself vulnerable to these accusations but I worked as a solicitor for 19 years with an unblemished record.

“I am reassured that the tribunal accepts that my clients suffered no loss or damage but nevertheless I apologise to them for any distress caused.”

The Telegraph & Argus understands the Labour Party’s whips’ office will look into the matter and take any appropriate action.

A Bradford Council spokesperson said: “The Council is unable to comment as any decision is capable of being appealed. It would be wrong to prejudge the outcome of any such appeal.”