Litigation Disciplinary Tribunals 07/10/97

Richard Alexander Dobson, practising at material times on his own account in Derby, fined £1,500 and ordered to pay £1,225 costs. Allegations substantiated that he failed or failed with reasonable expedition to lodge accountant's report and failed to respond substantively to letters written to him by applicant. Dobson previously before tribunal in 1995 when he was fined £500 for failure to comply with accounting rules. Tribunal dismayed he was appearing before it a second time but said he had got himself into a muddle.

Muhammad Waseem Khan-Sherwani, 35, admitted 1988, practising at material time as Sherwani, London SE5, fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £1,137 costs. Allegations substantiated he failed to honour undertakings given in course of his practice as a solicitor, failed to reply to correspondence and enquiries addressed to him by other solicitors, a client and the Solicitors Complaints Bureau (SCB), deceived or misled the SCB and failed to comply with SCB direction. Tribunal told Khan-Sherwani previously before it in 1996 when he was fined £1,500. Tribunal said it was concerned that this was his second appearance before it and he appeared to have failed to grasp the nettle in his position as a sole practitioner. It was clear to the tribunal that he was not equipped to be a sole practitioner and it recommended to the Law Society that he should not be permitted to so practise for the foreseeable future.

Peter Norman Bucknall, 52, admitted 1973, practising at material time on his own account in Stone, Staffordshire, ordered to be suspended from practice for indefinite period. Allegations substantiated he failed or failed with reasonable expedition to deliver accountant's report in accordance with decision of Adjudication and Appeals Committee of Solicitors Complaints Bureau. Tribunal found it difficult not to infer that his accounts were unsatisfactory and in a mess. He could apply for period of suspension to be determined on demonstrating to the tribunal that his affairs were in order, but in view of his failure and lack of explanation for what had happened, the tribunal invited the Law Society to consider whether he should be permitted to practise as sole principal.