Litigation Disciplinary Tribunals 30/08/94

KARINA MAY ALLAN, 36, admitted 1982, practised as Allan & Co, London N22, struck off and ordered to pay u1,980 costs. Allegations substantiated she failed to keep books correctly, wrongly drew and used client money for her own purposes, failed to deliver accountant's report on time, acted for both sides in property transaction where there was potential conflict of interests, failed to provide building society client with new information relating to purchase price of property, had been convicted of criminal offence and received a suspended sentence. Tribunal told she was sentenced at Southwark Crown Court in June 1993 to suspended term of 12 months for mortgage fraud although her only gain was said to have been payment of ordinary conveyancing fees. Tribunal said conviction of solicitor for criminal offences involving dishonesty committed during course of ordinary day-to-day practice would inevitably result in striking off.

ABDUL ALEEM KHAN, 63, admitted 1982, and ROBERT BASIL SOUTHCOMBE, 60, admitted 1979, practised in partnership as Aleem Khan & Co, London E6 suspended for 12 months and fined u1,500 respectively. Allegations substantiated they wrongly drew and used client money, failed to keep properly written books and failed to supervise staff employed by them. In respect of Khan, tribunal expressed concern that he was before them in September 1989 facing broadly similar allegations. They said he appeared not to have heeded the warning in the earlier finding.

PAUL ANTHONY GIBBON, 34, admitted 1985, practised as PA Gibbon, Manchester, fined u2,500 and ordered to pay u1,299.50 costs. Allegations substantiated he failed to keep books correctly, wrongly drew money from client account, paid client money into an incorrect account. Tribunal told investigation of Gibbon's books by Law Society investigation accountant revealed cash shortage of u8,400, partly accounted for by improper payments of u3,000 from client to office bank account. Transfer said to have been made with consent of client in respect of property transaction. Tribunal said at time of hearing respondent unemployed. No loss had been sustained by any client. They found breaches were serious, but recognised there was no dishonest intent, no client suffered loss and no call had been made on compensation fund. Doubts expressed as to whether Gibbon should be allowed to practise alone in future.