An experienced solicitor who failed to tell two new employers about previous drink-drive convictions has been struck off the roll.
Neelash Mehta was also found to have breached one firm’s expenses policy and driven his car at least four times whilst disqualified.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal said Mehta was motived by ‘self-preservation’ as he was dishonest with two different firms and sought to conceal his wrongdoing.
The tribunal heard that Mehta, a solicitor for almost 20 years, had been a member of national firm TLT when he was convicted in 2016 for driving with excess alcohol and was disqualified for 12 months.
Two years later, he committed the same offence again and was disqualified from holding a driving licence for 40 months.
It was during this period that he made declarations to his next firm, national practice Ashfords, on expenses claim forms. These signed declarations, to claim mileage of £46.80 and £17.10 respectively, stated that Mehta had a valid driving licence, insurance and a valid MOT certificate.
Mehta, 52, later told Ashfords that his wife had driven the vehicle on both occasions and he had not told the HR department about his disqualification because he considered it a personal matter which did not affect his work.
In 2020, Mehta’s company Kaelaar Limited, where he was sole director, entered into a contract for services with remote working firm Keystone. In this contract, he stated that he had not been convicted of any criminal offence and had not been subject to disciplinary procedures or investigation for any former firm or by the SRA. None of this was true.
Mehta claimed that he had not read the contract except for the parts about remuneration. Should the tribunal determine that he had not read the contract, he argued, the allegation of dishonesty should fail.
The tribunal found it was clear when he signed the expenses forms that Mehta knew he was banned from driving. It did not accept his submission that he had not read the Keystone contract fully, given he was an experienced lawyer who regularly scrutinised contracts as part of his everyday work.
The tribunal added: ‘[Mehta] wished to maintain his reputation and income at Ashfords and did not want to jeopardise his ability to continue to earn money with Keystones.
‘His actions were planned. He knew when he signed the expenses forms that the declarations he made were untrue. He also knew, having read the contract, that the warranties that he gave to Keystones were also untrue.’
The tribunal found no exceptional circumstances that would save him from being struck off and also ordered he pay £27,000 costs.
