2 July 2009

The charges against Humaira Shah of Huma Law Associates in Luton were:

Failing to ensure that a client was given, in writing, particulars of the name and status of the person dealing with his matter and/or particulars of the person responsible for its overall supervision, whereby disrepute was likely to be brought upon the Institute and its members contrary to Rule 2.02(2)(d) of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007 and paragraph 1(1) of the Code of Conduct of the Institute of Legal Executives.

The particulars of this charge were that on or at any time after 27 August 2007 Humaira Shah, carrying on business under the style “Huma Law Associates” from 27 Cardiff Road Luton LU1 1PP failed to ensure that her client, was given in writing the name and status of the person dealing with the matter in which he had instructed her (and the name of the person responsible for its overall supervision), namely an immigration appeal.

Failing to provide a good standard of service to a client whereby disrepute was likely to be brought upon the Institute and its members contrary to Rule 1.05 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007, paragraph 1(1) of the Code of Conduct of the Institute of Legal Executives, and paragraphs B(3) and (4) of the Guides to Good Practice for the Legal Executive.

The particulars of this charge were that on or at any time after 27 August 2007 the said Humaira Shah, having accepted instructions from the said client in the matter of an immigration appeal failed, or  alternatively failed adequately, to ensure the preparation and/or submission of such appeal to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal in a timely fashion or at all.

Further, or alternatively, the said Humaira Shah failed to keep the said client informed of progress of such appeal as was reasonable in the circumstances, or at all.

Failing to respond in writing to a client’s complaints, whereby disrepute was likely to be brought upon the Institute and its members contrary to Rule 2.05 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007 and paragraph 1(1) of the Code of Conduct of the Institute of Legal Executives.

The particulars of this charge were that the said Humaira Shah, carrying on the said business at the said address and having received a complaint or complaints from her said client including in writing by letter dated 23 January 2008, failed to respond in writing, or alternatively failed to respond adequately or at all to the said complaint(s).

Failing to abide by written assurances given previously to ILEX, whereby disrepute was likely to be brought upon the Institute and its members contrary to paragraph 1(1) of the Code of Conduct of the Institute of Legal Executives.

The particulars of this charge were that the said Humaira Shah, carrying on the said business at the said address, and having provided written assurances on 18 June 2007, 6 September 2007 and 17 September 2007 to ILEX that henceforth all telephone attendances relevant to the files and personal attendances will be properly recorded and will be placed on the file failed to record all or any of the 14 telephone calls made by her client to her said office.

The charges were found proved upon Mrs Shah’s admission.

The Tribunal ordered that Mrs. Shah should be excluded from membership of ILEX for 1 year; that she should pay costs in the sum of £2,645, including VAT (if applicable); and that she should pay compensation to the client in the sum of £300. 

Mrs Shah appealed against the order of the Disciplinary Tribunal.  The Appeals Tribunal refused the appeal.  It made the following decisions:

That Mrs Shah notify each ‘live’ client or prospective client starting on or before 6 Nov 2009 that she has been excluded from ILEX with effect from that date and can no longer legally practise.

That she make appropriate continuity arrangements for all clients.

That she provide to ILEX on or before 6 November 2009 a list of all clients setting out: (i) names and dates of notification for each client; (ii) date of transfer of each client’s case to another person to continue action as necessary on the case; (iii) the name in each case of the person/firm to whom each case is transferred.

The Appeal Tribunal ordered that Mrs Shah should pay costs in respect of the Appeal hearing of £1000 (incl. VAT).