Three crooked members of a family law firm who lived a life of luxury on £840,000 of clients' cash have been thrown out of the profession.

Imran, Saira and Shamim Karim were described as "dangerous to the profession and the public" after they kept money from property deals.

Senior partner Imran Karim, 40, boasted five cars including a Ferrari 335 Belinetta and a north London flat, all paid for by clients of Karim and Co.

He was friends with Premiership footballers and spent hundreds of pounds every day on bottles of Krystal champagne entertaining at favourite West End wine bars.

Asked what he had done with the money he confessed to investigators: "I bought a Rolex, loose women and drink".

The family took holidays in the Cayman Islands and Florida, owned a home in New York and paid off the Inland Revenue and their American Express bills with their clients' money.

Imran's sister Saira Karim, 39, pumped money into 'Miss Nude UK' - a beauty contest she set up with Nick Reynolds, the son of Great Train Robber Bruce 'Butch' Reynolds which was shown on Sky TV.

She also used the money to fund a failed music business project.

Compensation and legal costs in the case are now expected to reach more than £2million.

While partners Saira and Imran enjoyed the money their mum Shamim, 65, was in actual control of the business and lived with her daughter in a large home in Esher, the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal heard.

Shamim Karim had been struck off previously but had the sanction reduced to a suspension on appeal.

The family shredded documents and refused to cooperate with investigators claiming the mortgage holders had authorised them to take the money.

Staff from the Law Society and the Solicitors Regulatory Authority were accused of racism and sexism in a series of delaying tactics.

One senior investigator described the case as "the most blatant case of dishonesty by solicitors I have ever come across".

The tribunal heard Karim and Co, based in Clerkenwell Road, central London, boasted the Pakistan Cricket Board, Channel 4 and a minister in the Pakistan government among its clients.

After a series of raids beginning in 1999 investigators found £450,000 had been misappropriated from the proceeds of a house sale belonging to clients Mr K and Miss D.

A further £390,000 had been taken from mortgage cash advanced by Northern Rock to Mrs Binu Govindan, who sold her home in Brighton Road, Purley and was buying a property on Woodcote Valley Road.

Shamim Karim, a lawyer for over 20 years was not a partner in the firm, but was the "prime mover" behind the thefts, said Mr David Barton for the Solicitors Regulatory Authority.

"It was a family practice and the nub of the case in terms of the most serious allegations is the three respondents were perpetrators of two distinct acts of theft of clients' money," Mr Barton said.

"That represents a gross and serious dereliction of duty.

"It was effectively theft of money for which there has been no explanation from any of the respondents."

Mr Barton said Shamim Karim used client accounts as if they were her own and the Karim children then took the money for their own use.

"They are utterly dishonest people. They are not fit to hold the office of solicitors."

Mr Barton said the Karims had told a 'family lie' to try and put most of the blame on the mother to shield the children.

The three, who denied the claims, were all found guilty of a series of allegations including dishonestly using clients money and deceiving the Law Society.

Tribunal chairman Andrew Isaacs said: "We do not consider there is any responsible decision we could make than to strike all three of these respondents off the register.

"We take the view they are all a danger to the profession and the public."

Speaking after the tribunal Saira said proceedings had been completed without any members of the family being present.

She said this meant they were unable to challenge the validity of the evidence.

Saira explained all three members furiously denied the claims raised and were in the process of appealing against the tribunal's decision.