A solicitor who misled the bar’s regulator about his chequered practice history when seeking to become a barrister has been struck off the roll.
Zeeshan Saquib Mian, 47, was admitted in 2007 and held a practising certificate between July 2007 and October 2016. He remained on the roll as a non-practising solicitor. Mian’s former firm, of which he was one of two directors, was intervened in by the SRA in October 2016. Mian, who had conditions imposed on his practising certificate in September 2016, was called to the bar in November that year and disbarred in June 2022.
Before his call, Mian was found to have failed to disclose relevant regulatory information and/or give false or misleading declarations to the Bar Standards Board and/or Lincoln’s Inn, including details of conditions imposed on his practising certificate.
He was also found to have failed to disclose relevant regulatory and/or disciplinary information to the BSB between his call to the bar and the BSB notifying him of its decision to investigate his conduct in December 2018.
Mian was also found to have been dishonest.
Read more
The SDT judgment said he ‘knew the conditions and their publication were significant’ and his failure to notify both the BSB and the Inn was ‘deliberate’.
The ‘harm to the regulatory process and to public confidence was substantial’ and Mian’s culpability was high, the SDT said.
‘His misconduct was motivated by a desire to avoid the risk that disclosure of the SRA conditions, regulatory enquiries and later SDT referral would jeopardise or affect his admission, call, or standing at the bar.’
The misconduct was ‘deliberate and calculated’. Mian ‘did not show meaningful insight into the seriousness of the misconduct’ and the SDT ‘did not find evidence of genuine remorse for the dishonest failure to disclose’ though Mian ‘expressed regret for the position in which he found himself’.
Striking Mian off the roll, the SDT said it was the ‘only appropriate and proportionate sanction.
‘The misconduct went to the heart of professional trustworthiness. The dishonesty was not momentary, technical, or confined to an isolated lapse. It was repeated, deliberate and concerned information which another regulator was entitled to receive in order to perform its own regulatory function.’
Mian was also ordered to pay £40,000 costs.
