A former solicitor struck off less than four years ago has failed to convince a tribunal to allow him back onto the roll.
Raj Mariaddan told the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal he accepted the decision to strike him off, but then repeatedly referred to the sanction as ‘draconian’.
He went on to say he should never have been investigated, let alone prosecuted, and maintained that the previous proceedings against him were unjust.
The tribunal rejected his application for restoration to the roll, adding: ‘His assertion of acceptance was undermined by his refusal to acknowledge the correctness of the findings and sanction, and his failure to demonstrate a clear understanding of the ethical standards expected of solicitors.’
Mariaddan, who had been admitted to the roll in 1995, had been a sole practitioner practising under the name of John Street Solicitors in north west London. In 2019, he entered into a partnership with another individual and started a new practice with the same name.
He was struck off in February 2022 after the tribunal found he had been dishonest to another law firm about his personal circumstances and dishonest on a professional indemnity insurance renewal form.
Applying to be restored to the roll, he urged the tribunal to consider subsequent investigations into his business partner and to take into account that he had suffered a heart attack and stroke in 2015 which impaired his professional judgement.
Mariaddan submitted that he had showed rehabilitation and insight, had undertaken counselling and had expressed remorse. He had remained engaged with legal developments as he had acted as a litigant in person in civil proceedings, and assisted others in legal proceedings on a pro bono basis.
He did not intend to return to work in a managerial capacity but had a possible job opportunity with an alternative business structure if he could return to practice.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority opposed the application, pointing out his health issues pre-dated the misconduct by four years and saying the bid to return to the profession was premature. He had provided insufficient evidence of rehabilitation, sought to minimise his responsibility and tried to blame others for the outcome of his case.
The tribunal said the application was ‘premature’ and that Mariaddan’s evidence ‘lacked candour and care’. Testimonials provided by him were given ‘limited weight’, particularly as one was written three years before his strike-off.
The application was dismissed and Mariaddan ordered to pay £4,150 costs.
