London law firm censured by judge over failings
A west London law firm has been publicly censured by a district judge for regulatory and procedural failures in a family court case involving financial remedies.
Delivering his ruling in Pool v Pool, Deputy District Judge Hales criticised Ash Solicitors, led by Ayesha Khan, for misleading the court, filing unsubstantiated claims regarding a client’s mental health, breaching confidentiality, and failing to supervise junior staff.
The judge stressed that errors by an apprentice reflected a failure by senior partners to ensure proper supervision of non-admitted staff.
Concerned
The judge said he was so concerned about the firm’s conduct that he considered it appropriate to deliver and publish a written judgment.
“It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to publish a judgment including such criticism of members of the legal profession,” the judge wrote.
“Parties to family proceedings, many of whom are spending money they can ill afford, deserve no less from the legal professionals involved. The competent conduct of legal proceedings is not negotiable,” the judge continues.
The case involved financial proceedings following the breakdown of a 20-year marriage.
Ash Solicitors placed itself on the record as representing the husband before a financial-remedies hearing.
The firm filed a position statement asserting that it was "common knowledge" that the husband suffered from mental-health issues, had been hospitalised, and was unfit to participate in proceedings.
However, Ash Solicitors failed to attend the February hearing or explain its absence, leading the court to adjourn the matter to allow for a medical report.
At a subsequent hearing, a statement filed by Ash Solicitors revealed that the firm had been unable to contact the husband prior to asserting he had mental-health issues.
It also emerged that the case was handled by a solicitor apprentice.
Acted without instructions
Deputy District Judge Hales paused proceedings, and it was later confirmed that Ash Solicitors had acted in February without instructions, having had no communication with the husband since mid-2025.
Additionally, the firm had forwarded a remote-access link for the confidential hearing to a social worker without the court's permission or knowledge, the England and Wales Law Society Gazette reports.