Comments on: On the naughty step

By: davidson harries

davidson harries — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:45:37 +0000

I have some knowledge of this case. The Karims have been found to be crooks by the Law Society and the High Court. Their only response has been to make claims of racism about the SDT, The Law Society, various judges and members of the press. The phrase ‘they know no shame’ should have been invented for them.

By: The Snail in that Legal Bottle: The Legal Complaints Service - Publishing solicitors' complaints records

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:46:26 +0000

[...] Karims of Karim Solicitors who the SDT recently struck off for dishonest use of clients’ money [see http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/06/on-the-naughty-step-3/ for more on the events]. .Andrew Holroyd suggested a few months ago to bring back an oath for [...]

By: Family Lore: June Post of the Month

Family Lore: June Post of the Month — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:27:15 +0000

[...] it received (and the calm responses to those comments), the award goes to Nearly Legal for “On the naughty step”. Read it and be amazed. The prize of a virtual position for a newly qualified housing/landlord and [...]

By: Nearly Legal

Nearly Legal — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:07:08 +0000

C - it is obvious isn’t it? Clearly it is someone from the Law Society trying to further discredit the Karims. An amateurish effort though.

By: C

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:44:08 +0000

I think conclusions have been drawn. Enough said.

It certainly got me through my day yesterday anyway!

Many thanks.

By: Nearly Legal

Nearly Legal — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:27:52 +0000

C and Minx - no self restraint involved. I was giggling loudly. There have also been emails… I have quite a strong suspicion I know who Annabel/frankie/Betty/Isabella is, but nothing concrete, so I will let people draw their own conclusions.

By the way, I would just like to point out that in Zurich v Karim, Imran and Saira were both found to be ‘profoundly reckless’ such that they passed the test for fraud and that their behaviour was ‘consistently dishonest’. So both Imran and Saira were found to have behaved fraudulently and dishonestly, even though they were not found to have assisted or known of the specific dishonest acts committed by Shamim. Just to clear that up.

I don’t know if this was also why the SDT found them to be dishonest, but, given Annabel’s insistence that there was no finding of specific dishonesty on the part of Imran and Saira in Zurich, it seemed worth pointing out that they were found to be ‘consistently dishonest’, and that they condoned persistent dishonest handling of money.

By: housinganger

housinganger — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:19:33 +0000

I doubt any kind of reply would penetrate the head of Annabel / BB. They had a chance to comment but resorted to name calling. Can’t say anymore I think.

By: lawminx

lawminx — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:57:53 +0000

I completely agree with C! NL, your self restraint is absolutely incredible!!

By: C

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:22:12 +0000

Well that was fun!!

Nearly Legal I bow down to your self restraint!

By: housinganger

housinganger — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:05:40 +0000

‘The Karims never owned a shredding device’

Personally I would want a solicitor who did own a shredding device so that they might properly dispose of personal information at the correct time in order to prevent ID theft.