In terms of background, Mr Shahzad began doing legal work for his flatmate shortly after he entered practice. The legal work included registering a trademark and logo, advising about a contractor dispute, and assisting with a Disputes Tribunal hearing. Mr Shahzad delivered an invoice to his flatmate for some of the work although the flatmate did not pay the invoiced sum. At the time, Mr Shazhad was not authorised to practise on his own account and was required to work as an employed lawyer under supervision. Later, Mr Shahzad and his flatmate fell out, and Mr Shahzad filed employment proceedings against the flatmate on behalf of his former employees (who had, for a period, resided in the same flat as Mr Shahzad and his flatmate). When it was pointed out to Mr Shahzad that he had a conflict of interest having previously acted for the flatmate and having resided with all the parties, he initially did not accept this. 

The Tribunal found that Mr Shahzad had misconducted himself by doing legal work for his flatmate as it amounted to practising on own account when not authorised to do so and providing regulated services to the public other than through his employer.  Acting against the flatmate similarly amounted to practising on own account without authorisation. In addition, Mr Shahzad acted in circumstances where he was a potential witness and his ability to act independently was compromised due to his emotional involvement with both parties. Mr Shahzad initially defended the charges but later accepted that his conduct demonstrated a breach of his professional duties and was therefore misconduct. 

In terms of penalty, the Tribunal considered Mr Shahzad’s misconduct was largely a product of his ignorance and inexperience noting Mr Shahzad was a newly admitted lawyer at the time and lacked the advantage of a mentor. It considered the conduct fell at the lower end of the spectrum of misconduct. The Tribunal noted the consequences of the misconduct were relatively minor but held it was required to recognise the level of misconduct “irrespective of whether harm is caused”. The Tribunal noted it disapproved of Mr Shahzad’s breach of professional boundaries but did not consider the charges career ending. The Tribunal determined censure, an order not to practise on own account and order to contribute to costs adequate to signal to Mr Shahzad, other junior lawyers, and the public that this misconduct has been responded to in an adequate and proportionate manner.