Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll. 

As a director and owner of BK Solicitors Limited, the respondent had participated in or facilitated the receipt and transfers of funds in circumstances which bore the hallmarks of fraud or other illegality, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019. 

The respondent had provided false and misleading information to the SRA, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 and paragraph 7.4(a) of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019. 

As a director and owner of BK, the respondent had failed to effect an orderly closure of BK in a timely manner, thereby breaching principle 2 and paragraph 2.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms 2019.

The respondent had knowingly participated in the receipt and transfers of funds through his firm’s client account in circumstances which bore the hallmarks of fraud or other illegality. When the circumstances were queried by the SRA during regulatory interviews, the respondent had provided false and misleading information on 21 June 2022 and 6 July 2022. 

The seriousness of the respondent’s misconduct was high. The main aggravating feature of the misconduct, given the respondent’s level of experience within the profession and responsibility as a partner in the firm, was the finding of dishonesty. The SDT could not find any exceptional circumstances justifying any lesser sanction other than a striking-off, so the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent’s name from the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £30,000.

The SDT ordered that respondent should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for 24 months from 1 May 2025.  

While in practice as a partner in office X at the firm, on 30 June 2022 the respondent had engaged in conduct towards Person A which was unwanted, inappropriate, sexualised and sexually motivated, in that he had said words to the effect of ‘I want to dominate you sexually’ or ‘I want you to dominate me sexually’; and further when Person A due to her shock had asked him ‘what are you saying to me?’, he had said, ‘I want to dominate you sexually’ and ‘yeah you’d like it’ one or more times. When Person A had told him to stop, he had said ‘I want to dominate you sexually’ one or more times; and had further said words to the effect of ‘yer you’d like it yer you’d want it; I want to do it’. He had thereby breached principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019, and rule 1.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019.

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the respondent in accordance with the statement of agreed facts and outcome annexed to the judgment. 

The respondent had admitted a lack of integrity. There could be no doubt that his culpability for his conduct was high and that his actions had had the potential to directly harm the reputation of the legal profession, and to cause harm to Person A, which was reasonably foreseeable. Person A had described themselves as having been ‘shocked, really angry and really upset’. 

The misconduct had been deliberate, and had included sexual misconduct, albeit that sexualised touching was not alleged. 

The respondent had voluntarily notified the regulator of the facts and circumstances giving rise to misconduct, which was either a single episode, or one of very brief duration in a previously unblemished career. The misconduct giving rise to the allegations was serious. 

A suspension was the appropriate sanction. Public confidence in the legal profession demanded no less.

While there was a need to protect both the public and the reputation of the legal profession from future harm from the respondent by removing his ability to practise, a striking from the roll was not justified.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £32,655.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll.

While he was practising as a solicitor at Brightstone Law LLP, the respondent had, between approximately March 2014 and June 2020, failed to disclose to the firm that he had been made subject to a bankruptcy order on 10 March 2014, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, and principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019.

On or around the dates (i) 21 February 2018; (ii) 19 February 2019; and (iii) 18 February 2020 he had signed and submitted ‘Annual Compliance Declaration’ forms to the firm, which falsely stated that he had not, nor had he ever, entered into an IVA, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the 2011 Principles and principles 2, 4 and 5 of the 2019 Principles. 

Between approximately March 2014 and June 2020, the respondent had failed to disclose to the SRA that he had been made subject to a bankruptcy order on 10 March 2014, thereby failing to achieve outcome 10.3 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011, regulation 15.1(c) of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 and principles 2, 6 and 7 of the 2011 Principles; rule 7.6(b) of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019; and principles 2, 4 and 5 of the 2019 Principles.

Between approximately March 2015 and June 2020, he had failed to disclose to the SRA that he had been made subject to a Bankruptcy Restrictions Undertaking on 17 March 2015, thereby breaching outcome 10.3 of the 2011 Code, regulation 15.1(c) of the 2011 Practising Regulations; principles 2 and 6 and 7 of the 2011 Principles; and principles 2, 4 and 5 of the 2019 Principles.

From approximately 11 March 2014 to approximately June 2020, he had practised as solicitor while his practising certificate was suspended, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the 2011 Principles; and principles 2, 4 and 5 of the 2019 Principles. The respondent had acted dishonestly. The respondent had been dishonest, and his misconduct could only be viewed as extremely serious. That, together with the need to protect the reputation of the legal profession, required that strike-off from the roll was the only appropriate sanction.

There was no order for costs.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice for 12 months from 30 April 2025. 

On 29 December 2021, the respondent had caused or allowed five email chains to be deleted from the firm’s case management system in respect of Client A’s matter, when she knew or ought to have known that by doing so she was concealing her involvement in issues that were relevant to the firm’s handling of Client A’s complaint. In doing so, she had breached principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles and paragraphs 1.4 and 3.5(a) of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

There was no dispute that the respondent had deleted the emails.

It was alleged that the respondent’s actions were designed to hide her involvement in the handling of amendments to the particulars of claim in Client A’s matter, to deflect blame away from herself on to a junior for whose supervision she was responsible. 

The respondent had been dishonest, albeit it was an isolated event which was likely to have been spontaneous, with an element of basic planning in terms of forming the idea of deleting the emails to hide her involvement. She was directly responsible for her actions. Her culpability was high though there was no loss to any party nor any gain to the respondent. 

There had been no direct harm to any client in the case.

The extent of the dishonesty was limited in duration and the SDT was prepared to accept it had been a ‘moment of madness’ on the respondent’s part at a time when she had been moving into a zone of ill-health, a factor which might not have been immediately apparent to her. She had acted wholly out of character, and the fact of the deletions had been easily uncovered. She had accepted from the start that she had deleted the emails, although she denied doing so knowingly or having any recollection of doing so.

The SDT found that the respondent’s conduct fell within the small residual category where striking-off would be a disproportionate sanction. 

The misconduct, aggravated by dishonesty, was of such seriousness that it would be proportionate and in the public interest for the respondent to be suspended from practice for a period of 12 months.

The SDT urged people in similar circumstances to ensure that they sought appropriate help before matters spiralled out of their control.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £24,949.

On 23 July 2025, the panel resolved to intervene into the above-named recognised body and into the practice of Sarfraz Amanji at the firm, based at 1st Floor Newspaper House, 40 Churchgate, Bolton BL1 1HL.

The ground for intervention into Amanji’s practice was:

• Reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Amanji in connection with his practice as a solicitor - paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

The ground for intervention into Kingsnorth Solicitors Ltd was:

• Reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Amanji as a manager of the firm, in connection with the firm’s business - paragraph 32 (1)(d) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended).

Sean Joyce of Stephensons Solicitors LLP, Wigan Investment Centre, Waterside Drive, Wigan, Greater Manchester WN3 5BA, (tel: 0333 321 4407, Email: interventions@stephensons.co.uk) has been appointed to act as the Society’s agent. The first date of attendance was 28 July.

Amanji’s practising certificate has been suspended as a result of the intervention.

On Tuesday, 29 July 2025, the SRA intervened into the licensed body, Real Legal Ltd, formerly of Suite 5, Empire Business Centre, 2 Empire Way, Burnley BB12 1HH. The firm ceased trading on 18 December 2024.

The grounds of intervention into Real Legal Ltd were:

• It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients, the interests of the beneficiaries of any trust of which the firm is or was a trustee, or the interests of the beneficiaries of any trust of which a person who is or was a manager or employee of the firm is or was a trustee in that person’s capacity as a manager or employee - paragraph 1(2)(f) Schedule 14, Legal Services Act 2007.

John Owen of Gordons LLP, 1 New Augustus Street, Bradford BD1 5LL (tel: 0113 227 0374, email: intervention@gordonsllp.com)  has been appointed as agent for this intervention.