Decisions and interventions

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the first respondent (admitted 2000) should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for one year from 13 February 2025, such suspension to be suspended for the period of two years. The SDT ordered that the second respondent should be struck off the roll.  

On 11 May 2021, while acting as a solicitor and as a sole practitioner and manager, owner, COLP and COFA of AUUA Law, the first respondent had provided inaccurate and misleading information in relation to an application for professional indemnity insurance, thereby breaching principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles. He had acted recklessly. 

Between 11 and 27 May 2021, the first respondent had employed the second respondent, a solicitor whose practising certificate he knew to have been suspended, to act as a solicitor with AUUA, thereby breaching principles 2 and 5 and paragraph 9.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms.

Between around 28 May 2021 and 6 October 2021, knowing that the second respondent was subject to conditions of practice which prohibited him from doing so, he had permitted the second respondent to be a signatory to AUUA’s office and client accounts and to authorise transfers from AUUA’s office and client account. In doing so he had breached principles 2 and 5 and paragraphs 9.1(a) and 9.1(c) of the code. 

Between around 1 March 2021 and 31 May 2021, the first respondent had failed to ensure that the books of account for a branch of AUUA complied with the SRA Accounts Rules, thereby breaching principle 2 and paragraph 9.2 of the code; and failing to comply with rules 8.1 and 8.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules. 

Between around 5 November 2020 and 27 May 2021, the second respondent had practised as a solicitor while his practising certificate was suspended, in breach of principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles. 

The motivation of both respondents was financial. To some extent, the first respondent had been deceived by the second respondent. Overall, their individual and collective culpability was very high. 

The element of deception on the part of the second respondent towards the first respondent was an important factor for consideration.

The harm caused was very high. The second respondent’s actions had been deliberate and calculated. There were few, if any, mitigating factors in his case, though he had eventually made admissions. 

The first respondent had shown genuine insight; made open and frank admissions at an early stage; and had fully cooperated with his regulator. He had also presented compelling character references attesting to his professional and personal qualities.

The appropriate sanction for the first respondent, given the seriousness of the breaches, was a suspension for one year. However, in the light of substantial mitigation and the particular circumstances of the case, the suspension would be suspended for two years. 

The extent of the dishonesty was not limited in duration, and it could be characterised as having been planned and thought out by the second respondent to the extent that he had misled the first respondent and defied his regulator. Balancing all the matters in the round there were no exceptional circumstances, and the appropriate sanction was an order striking the second respondent off the roll. 

The respondents were each ordered to pay costs of £25,000.

On 18 June 2025, an adjudication panel resolved to intervene into the recognised sole practice of Alexander Martin Groat, practising as Waughs Solicitors from premises formerly based at Clarendon House, Judges Terrace, High St, East Grinstead RH19 3AD. The intervention was effected on 23 June. 

The grounds of intervention were:

(a) Groat had been adjudged bankrupt (paragraph 1(1)(d) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended)).

(b) It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients and former clients of Groat and/or the interests of the beneficiaries of any trust of which Groat is or was a trustee (paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended)).

Chris Evans of Lester Aldridge LLP, Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth BH8 8EX (email: Intervention.Enquiries@LA-Law.com; tel: 01202786341) has been appointed to act as the intervention agent.

On 20 June 2025, the adjudicator resolved to intervene into the above-named sole practice of Ellis Roger Mizrahi, at 8 Princes Way, Buckhurst Hill IG9 5DY. Mizrahi passed away on 24 January 2025.

The firm closed on 30 September 2008.

The ground of intervention was: it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of the former clients of Mizrahi (paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended)).

No intervention agent has been appointed. The intervention notices were served on 23 June 2025.

The SRA will be making arrangements to uplift the practice files and monies relating to this firm.

On 3 June 2025, an adjudication panel resolved to intervene into Gareth Webb & Co LLP from premises based at Yeovil Innovation Centre, Barracks Close, Copse Road, Yeovil BA22 8RN. The first date of attendance was 6 June 2025.

The grounds of intervention were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Katherine Louise Mickler, as a manager of the firm, in connection with the firm’s business (paragraph 1(2)(d)(i) of Schedule 14 to the Legal Services Act 2007).
• One or more of the terms of the firm’s licence had not been complied with (paragraph 1(2)(a) of Schedule 14 to the Legal Services Act 2007).

Claire Burrows of Shakespeare Martineau, SHMA SRA Interventions, PO Box 18228, Birmingham B2 2HX (tel: 0300 247 2470; email: interventions@shma.co.uk) has been appointed to act as the intervention agent.