REHMAN Quddus Ur

Rehman, Quddus Ur

Date

11 August 2011

Charges

The charges against Mr Rehman were:

1. Failing to comply with and/or respond to reasonable enquiries made by or on behalf of an Officer of IPS, whereby the Institute or its Members were likely to be brought into disrepute, contrary to: Paragraph 1 (1) of the Code of Conduct of the Institute of Legal Executives / Paragraphs 2 and 4 of the IPS Code of Conduct; and Rule 27(g) of the old Investigation, Disciplinary and Appeals Rules / Rule 21 (g) of the new Investigation Disciplinary & Appeals Rules.

The particulars to this charge were that from and after 10 December 2009 Quddus-Ur-Rehman, a Graduate Member of ILEX carrying on the practice of immigration law adviser, failed to comply and/or respond, alternatively failed adequately so to comply and/or respond, with reasonable enquiries made of him by the Officer investigating complaints concerning his practice made by, on behalf of or concerning Mr B, Mrs G and Mrs M.

2. Conduct likely to bring the Institute or its Members into disrepute and/or failing to comply with the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007, contrary to: Paragraphs 1 (1) of the Code of Conduct of the Institute of Legal Executives and/or Paragraph A(4) of the Guides to Good Practice for the Legal Executive.

The particulars to this charge were that from or after 9 September 2009 Quddus-Ur-Rehman, a Graduate Member of ILEX engaged in the practice of immigration law adviser under the style Quddus and Charles Law Chamber, failed to ensure that his client Mrs M was given in writing such particulars of the name and status of the person dealing with the client’s matter and the name of the person responsible for its overall supervision and/or information about the cost, and/or a complaints procedure as were required by Rules 2.02, 2.03 and 2.05 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007.

3. Conduct likely to bring the Institute or its Members into disrepute and/or failing to keep his client informed of progress of the matter in which he was instructed, contrary to: Paragraph 1 (1) of the Code of Conduct of the Institute of Legal Executives and/or Paragraph A (4) of the Guides to Good Practice for the Legal Executive.

The particulars to this charge were that on divers occasions between 9 September 2009 and 23 December 2009 the said Quddus-Ur-Rehman, then acting for the said Mrs M in the course of the said practice, failed or failed adequately to reply to telephone calls and/or text messages from his said client or otherwise keep her informed as to the progress of her appeal to the Asylum & Immigration Tribunal (against a decision to remove her from the United Kingdom) in breach of Rule 2.02 (1) (d) of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007; and/or between 20 November 2009 and 1 December 2009 the said Quddus-Ur-Rehman failed to advise upon or otherwise protect the interests of his said client Mrs M concerning the decision of the Asylum & Immigration Tribunal to make no order upon an application for reconsideration of an earlier Decision of the Tribunal under Section 103 A of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

4. Conduct likely to bring the Institute or its Members into disrepute and/or failing to assist the administration of justice and/or failing to recognise the interests of his client were paramount, contrary to: Paragraphs 1 (1), and/or 1 (3) and/or 1 (4) of the Code of Conduct of the Institute of Legal Executives. 

The particulars to this charge were in October 2009 the said Quddus-Ur-Rehman in the course of acting for the said Mrs M in her said appeal failed to advise her to attend an appeal hearing listed to be heard on 21 October 2009, alternatively wrongly and/or negligently advised her not to attend, thereby exposing the client to the risk of detriment in her appeal; and/or on 21 October 2009 the said Quddus-Ur-Rehman failed to attend and/or arrange for the representation of his said client Mrs M at her appeal hearing listed to be heard on that date.

5. Conduct likely to bring the Institute or its Members into disrepute and/or likely to cast doubt upon his own professional integrity, contrary to: Paragraphs 1 (1) and/or 1 (2) of the Code of Conduct of the Institute of Legal Executives.

The particulars to this charge were that on or about 2 October 2009 the said Quddus-Ur-Rehman in the course of acting for the said Mrs M in her said appeal caused to be submitted to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal a Reply Notice stating that his said client required an Urdu interpreter at the hearing when he knew, or ought to have known, that English is her first language; and/or on or about 20 October 2009 the said Quddus-Ur-Rehman caused to be sent to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal a letter requesting an adjournment on the grounds, inter alia, that his said client Mrs M was destitute, her son was suffering from “flu and temperature” and that she was unable to attend the hearing, which he neither knew nor was instructed by his client was in fact the case. 

6. Conduct likely to bring the Institute or its Members into disrepute and/or likely to cast doubt upon his own professional integrity, contrary to: Paragraphs 1 (1) and/or 1 (2) of the Code of Conduct of the Institute of Legal Executives.

The particulars to this charge were that on or about 6 December 2009 Quddus-Ur-Rehman, a Graduate Member of ILEX engaged in the practice of immigration services under the style Quddus and Charles Law Chamber, orally represented to Mrs G that he was a solicitor when in fact he was not.

7. Conduct likely to bring the Institute or its Members into disrepute and/or failing to comply with the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007, contrary to: Paragraph 1 (1) of the Code of Conduct of the Institute of Legal Executives and/or Paragraph A (4) of the Guides to Good Practice for the Legal Executive.

The particulars to this charge were that between 6 December 2009 and 23 March 2010 the said Quddus-Ur-Rehman, in the course of providing immigration services to the said Mrs G under the said style failed to provide in writing to his client such particulars of the name and status of the person dealing with her matter and the name of the person responsible for its overall supervision and/or information about the cost and/or a complaints procedure, as was required by Rules 2.02, 2.03 and 2.05 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007.  In consequence of these matters the said Quddus-Ur-Rehman:- 

(a) failed to inform his said client that he was a Member of ILEX and not a Solicitor;
(b) received from the said client (and has retained) payments totalling £1,400 without accounting to her by way of invoice or providing any analysis of the service he claims to have rendered for or on her behalf;
(c) on Friday 22 January 2010 demanded of the said client the sum of £400 in cash in order to attend an asylum application meeting in Liverpool on Monday 25 January 2010, being the next working day; and
(d) the said client was unaware of any complaints procedure in respect of any such services. 

8. Conduct likely to bring the Institute or its Members into disrepute and/or likely to cast doubt upon his own professional integrity, contrary to: Paragraphs 1 (1) and/or 1 (2) of the Code of Conduct of the Institute of Legal Executives.

The particulars to this charge were that in or about March 2010 the said Quddus-Ur-Rehman in the course of acting for the said Mrs G sent or caused to be sent to the First-Tier Tribunal of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal a letter seeking an adjournment on the ground that the “caseworker” from Quddus and Charles, being the legal representative of the Appellant (the said Mrs G), had died whilst on holiday in Pakistan when in fact such statement was untrue.

9. Conduct likely to bring the Institute or its Members into disrepute, contrary to: Paragraph 1 (1) of the Code of Conduct of the Institute of Legal Executives and/or failing to comply with the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007.

The particulars to this charge were that by a letter dated 23 March 2010 addressed to the said Mrs G the said Quddus-Ur-Rehman terminated his retainer with his said client and/or thereby ceased acting for her without reasonable notice and without good reason, in breach of Paragraph 2.01 (2) of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007.

Outcome

The charges were found proved

Sanction

The Disciplinary Tribunal excluded Mr Rehman from membership of ILEX for a minimum period of ten years and ordered him to make a contribution to costs.