The Tribunal found allegation 1.1 proved in full. Mr Ilyas had failed adequately to supervise the conduct of straightforward litigation, resulting in repeated non-compliance with court orders, wasted costs orders, adjournments, exclusion of evidence and the striking out of the client’s claim. His conduct breached paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6 of the Code and Principles 1, 2, 5 and 7. The Tribunal found that the misconduct was manifestly incompetent and that it also demonstrated a lack of integrity.

Allegation 1.2 was found proved in part. The Tribunal found that Mr Ilyas had misled the court by omission when he failed to disclose that Client A was an employee of the Firm. That conduct breached paragraph 1.4 of the Code and Principles 1 and 2. However, the Tribunal accepted that the omission arose in difficult personal circumstances, after Mr Ilyas had received news of his uncle’s death. The Tribunal did not find that Mr Ilyas had acted dishonestly, recklessly or without integrity.

Allegation 1.3.1 was dismissed. The Tribunal found that Mr Ilyas’ response to the SRA on 10 February 2023 was not inaccurate or misleading when read in the context of the questions asked.

Allegation 1.3.2 was found proved. The Tribunal found that Mr Ilyas knowingly provided inaccurate and misleading information to the SRA about the owner and user of the “S” email address. His successive explanations were implausible, inconsistent with the known facts and calculated to conceal Client A’s use of the email address and connection with the Firm. The Tribunal found that this conduct breached paragraph 1.4 of the Code and Principles 2, 4 and 5, and that it was dishonest.

The Tribunal determined that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike Mr Ilyas off the Roll of solicitors. It did not find that there were exceptional circumstances so that such a sanction was disproportionate. The Tribunal’s reasoning can be accessed here.