A solicitor who claimed he was living off benefits to avoid paying a debt to the Legal Aid Agency has been struck off the roll.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found Raj Rajan Mariaddan acted dishonestly by telling a firm acting for the LAA that his only income was disability living allowance. He also claimed not to have a bank account in his name and that he was semi-retired and/or had been unemployed since 2015 – neither of which was true.
Mariaddan was a joint partner in north west London firm John Street Solicitors LLP until the firm was intervened into by the SRA in 2021. Investigators found that he had an outstanding debt to the LAA and had requested to pay it off in instalments.
He claimed to receive only £500 a month which was paid into his wife’s account, and enclosed statements covering a seven-month period. He stated he had not earned any income for at least two years and remained a director with his firm in name only.
His firm’s accounts showed Mariaddan's drawings from the LLP amounted to almost £28,000 from August 2019 to April 2020. He had also drawn £7,300 for the previous tax year. He denied he had been misleading by declaring a zero income on forms requested by the LAA’s solicitors and said what drawings he did make.
It was also found that Mariaddan provided misleading information on a professional indemnity renewal form by failing to disclose the SRA’s ongoing investigation.
The tribunal’s judgment said: ‘He was motivated by his desire to obtain insurance for the firm and to avoid repaying the debt it was said that he owed to the LAA. The tribunal found that [his] actions were planned and deliberate. He was solely and directly responsible for the circumstances giving rise to the misconduct.’
Mariaddan’s representative said the solicitor was ‘clearly just muddled’ rather than misleading or dishonest. It was submitted that he was never specifically asked about drawings and that much of the SRA’s case was ‘hearsay evidence’.
The tribunal was told Mariaddan, a solicitor since 1995, had appeared before the SDT twice before, once for a breach of accounts rules and then for making representations to solicitors that were misleading and/or inaccurate. He paid a total of £27,000 in fines.
This time, he was struck off the roll and ordered to pay £31,000 in costs.
Postcript: The tribunal confirmed on 28 March that its decision was subject to appeal to the High Court (Administrative Court) by Mariaddan. The striking off order remains in force pending the court’s decision on the appeal.
