A lawyer has been accused of “blatant discrimination” after refusing to represent an Israeli client because it conflicted with his Muslim faith and his opposition to Israel.
Kassam Boota, a partner with XYZ Law Solicitors, told Nissim Malca, a 55-year-old mortgage adviser based in Leeds, that the firm would reassign his case to another solicitor.
Mr Boota has now been reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which acts as a watchdog for all solicitors and law firms in England and Wales, which his lawyers say are in direct breach of equalities legislation.
Mr Malca, an Israeli national, had instructed XYZ Law in February 2024 to work on a remortgage and sale for himself before going on to instruct the firm on two other properties as part of his job.
In October, midway through the process, he mentioned to Mr Boota that he was in Israel for a family visit. Mr Boota, who has decorated his social media pages with the pro-Palestinian watermelon slice symbol, then told Mr Malca that he would no longer represent him.
‘Didn’t know how to react’
In a complaint to the SRA lodged on Mr Malca’s behalf by UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) he stated: “I mentioned that I was in Israel visiting my family.
“At that point, the solicitor asked if I was Israeli and I replied yes. He then stated that he does not agree with the actions of the Israeli government and, due to his beliefs as a Muslim, he no longer wants to represent me.
“He then went on to say that he would ask the firm to reassign my case to another solicitor.”
Mr Malca told The Telegraph: “I couldn’t believe what I was hearing, I never experienced anything like that before and didn’t know how to react as it caught me by surprise.
“I felt humiliated and angry at the same time that a solicitor allowed himself to say that to me in the open, with no shame or worry about any consequences, as if it was a very normal and ok thing to do or say.”
UKLFI accused XYZ Law, which has offices in Manchester, Dewsbury and London, of allowing Mr Boota to discriminate against Mr Malca in breach of the Equality Act 2010.
The organisation argued that Mr Malca had a protected characteristic of race, religion or belief under the Act.
‘Blatant’ discrimination
UKLFI claimed that both Mr Boota and XYZ Law were acting in breach of SRA principles by failing to uphold the constitutional principle of the law and public trust in the solicitors’ profession.
The advocacy group also said Mr Boota and XYZ Law failed to act in the best interests of each client.
Caroline Turner, director of UKLFI, said: “It is shocking that someone working for a law firm could be so blatantly and illegally discriminatory in his treatment of the firm’s own clients, and that the firm just seemed to accept this as normal behaviour.
“We deplore his conduct and hope that the SRA will act to stop this discrimination.”
The SRA said: “We do not usually confirm if we have received a complaint. However, if we do receive a complaint, then we will look at the evidence given to us before deciding on next steps.”
Mr Boota declined to comment when approached by The Telegraph. XYZ Law was also approached for comment.