A former solicitor who was struck off in 2022 has failed with his second attempt in 18 months to be restored to the roll.
Raj Rajan Mariaddan must pay the Solicitors Regulation Authority £5,000 in costs after his latest application was denied by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
Mariaddan was a London sole practitioner operating under the name John Street Solicitors until April 2019, when he entered partnership with another individual using the same firm name. He was struck off in February 2022 and ordered to pay £30,948 in costs, after providing misleading information to a law firm and to a broker in connection with indemnity insurance renewal. He had continued to practise, including holding client money, without valid indemnity insurance.
Mariaddan’s first attempt at restoration was refused in October 2025, when he was ordered to pay costs of more than £4,000. The second application was heard last month. Giving its decision, the tribunal noted that an application for restoration made within six years of the original strike-off was likely to be regarded as premature ‘save in the most exceptional circumstances’.
Mariaddan submitted that he had demonstrated insight, remorse and rehabilitation since the breaches that led to his ban. He called on the tribunal to take account of his medical history, including cardiac arrest, stroke and cognitive difficulties, which ‘provided important context to the circumstances in which the misconduct had occurred’.
He gave evidence referring to cognitive difficulties which ‘may have been caused’ by a hypoxic event, but accepted that his medical records did not contain a diagnosis of hypoxic brain injury. The claimant said certain medical records relied upon by him had existed previously but had not, in his view, been properly put before earlier tribunals.
He had been discharged from bankruptcy but had not paid the £4,150 costs ordered following the previous, failed restoration application. He believed those costs had been written off by the SRA.
He claimed to be a low future risk to the public and said that, if restored, would practise only in a limited and supervised capacity.
Refusing the second application, the tribunal stated that ‘certain aspects of his evidence tended to minimise his own responsibility and draw attention instead to that of others and focus upon matters relating to his former business partner, intervention into his practice and the consequences which he himself had suffered. The tribunal considered that this demonstrated, at best, only limited insight into the misconduct which led to his strike-off and its wider implications for public confidence in the profession.’
The tribunal also considered other aspects of the applicant’s evidence which gave rise to concern. These included 'references to an “unblemished career” notwithstanding the applicant’s regulatory history and judicial observations made in separate civil proceedings in 2017 concerning the applicant’s credibility and reliability.’
The SRA sought costs of £8,760. The chair acknowledged the applicant’s limited means and made an order of £5,000.
