Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for four months, such suspension to be suspended for a period of 2 years from 1 October 2025.  

While in practice as a solicitor at Regal Solicitors (NW) Limited between July 2020 and April 2021 the respondent, when representing himself in a personal injury claim, had failed to disclose information in respect of his medical history when he knew or ought to have known that that was relevant to (a) the expert report prepared for the case and (b) the issue being litigated. He had thereby breached principles 1, 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles and paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

The potential impact of the respondent’s conduct was high, as misleading the court was inherently serious and represented a significant departure from the integrity and probity expected of a solicitor. The inaccuracy

had persisted for at least six months and had only been corrected by the defence solicitors and the court, rather than by any action taken by the respondent.

There had been no dishonesty, no criminal offence, no deliberate intent, no exploitation of others, no hostility, no sexual element, and no violence. There was also no evidence of planning or concealment.

The SDT took account of the respondent’s self-reporting, his insight, his co-operation with the regulator, the singular nature of the episode, and his unblemished 23-year career. There had been no repetition of such conduct since the events. 

A suspended suspension was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction. It marked the seriousness of the misconduct and signalled to the profession the unacceptability of misleading the court, while recognising that the respondent’s lapse was not deliberate or dishonest, that he posed minimal risk to the public, and that there were significant mitigating factors. The suspension, set at four months and suspended for a period of two years, ensured that the respondent remained accountable and under scrutiny; it provided a clear deterrent and maintained the reputation of the profession without imposing an unnecessarily severe restriction on his ability to practise. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £15,000.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll. While in practice as a sole principal at Charles Hill & Co Solicitors, between 1 January 2020 and 31 January 2024, the respondent had misappropriated client monies for the benefit of himself and his firm, creating a minimum client account shortage of £163,112.83 that had not been replaced. He had thereby breached principles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the SRA Principles, paragraph 4.2 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors and rules 5.1 and 6.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019. 

On 6 March 2023 and 14 November 2023, the respondent had issued cheques, each in the amount of £122,009.82, to client DN when he knew that the firm did not have sufficient funds to honour either of them, thereby misleading client DN and in so doing, had breached principles 2, 4 and 5 and paragraph 1.4 of the code. 

Between 1 April 2020 and 8 March 2024, the respondent had failed to ensure that the firm’s books of account were maintained in compliance with the accounts rules and in so doing, had breached rules 8.1, 8.3 and 12.1 of the rules; paragraph 4.2 of the code; and principles 2 and 5. 

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 SDT had reviewed all the material before it and was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s admissions had been properly made. 

The respondent was directly responsible for the circumstances giving rise to the misconduct. His motivation for misappropriating client funds and issuing cheques, knowing they would not be honoured, was financial. The harm extended beyond financial loss to clients, encompassing reputational damage to the profession, procedural disruption, and regulatory risk.

The respondent’s conduct had involved admitted dishonesty. A finding of dishonesty would, absent exceptional circumstances, require an order striking the solicitor from the roll. While certain mitigating factors had been advanced, they did not amount to exceptional circumstances capable of displacing the presumption of strike-off following a finding of dishonesty.

The SDT therefore determined, given the finding of dishonesty against the respondent, that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike his name from the roll. He was ordered to pay costs of £1,000.

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

On 2 May 2023, during the course of proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal the respondent had completed a statement of means that was false and misleading, in that he had answered ‘no’ to a question asking if he had disposed of any asset which he owned worth in excess of £1,000 during the previous three years, when he knew that was not true; and he had failed to disclose information regarding the proceeds of sale of a property previously owned by him. He had thereby acted in breach of principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles and paragraph 1.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs. 

The respondent was motivated by his own financial advantage. He had deliberately misled the SDT and the SRA with regard to his means. 

No circumstances had been found (and indeed none had been submitted) that were enough to bring the respondent in line with the residual exceptional circumstances category referred to in the case of Sharma. In view of the serious nature of the misconduct, in that it involved dishonesty, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £32,857, such order not to be enforced without leave of the SDT. 

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £1,500. While a solicitor, partner and head of the family law team at Berrymans Lace Mawer LLP the respondent had, between December 2019 and April 2021, misled his client, person A, into believing that he had lodged an application for a decree nisi on her behalf in October or November 2019, when he knew, or ought to have known, that that was not true. He had thereby breached principles 2 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 1.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs. 

The respondent’s failings had not arisen from any intention to mislead or to obtain personal advantage, nor had there been any finding of dishonesty, lack of integrity or recklessness. Rather, the misconduct lay in his failure to exercise sufficient oversight of an administrative step which, in hindsight, had required closer attention. He accepted that he ought to have known that the decree nisi had not been lodged and that a simple enquiry would have clarified matters. His culpability was therefore greater than a single isolated oversight, but materially less than deliberate or reckless misconduct.

The harm to person A had gone beyond mere inconvenience. She had been caused real anxiety and distress, to the extent that her health had been affected. 

Aggravating features included the duration of the misconduct, the repeated reassurances given to person A which had later proved inaccurate, and the fact that the respondent was a senior solicitor and partner with ultimate responsibility for the file. 

Mitigating features were, however, significant: the respondent had an otherwise unblemished career; there had been no finding of dishonesty, lack of integrity, recklessness or criminal conduct; and it was accepted that personal pressures, including his wife’s pregnancy and the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, provided context for his failings. 

The appropriate sanction was a Level 1 financial penalty. The sum of £1,500 properly reflected the seriousness of the misconduct, acknowledged the harm to the client, served as a proportionate deterrent, and upheld the reputation of the profession, while recognising the limited culpability in the case. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £15,000.  

On 7 November 2025, the SRA intervened into the licensed body Canfields Law Ltd of Bentink House, 3-8 Bolsover Street, London W1W 6AB.

The ground for intervention was: a relevant insolvency event occurred in relation to the firm when it was a licensed body – paragraph 1(2)(c) Schedule 14, Legal Services Act 2007.

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

On Tuesday 11 November 2025, the SRA intervened into the practice of Faheem Ali not limited to Alison Law Solicitors LLP of 437-441 London Road, Sheffield S2 4HJ. (Also trading as Parker Thomas Solicitors).

The grounds for intervention into the practice of Ali were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on Ali’s part in connection with his practice as a solicitor at Alison Law Solicitors LLP (paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of Schedule 1 – Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended)).
• Ali had failed to comply with the SRA Principles 2019, the SRA Accounts Rules 2019, the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms and the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs, which are rules made under sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) (paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended). 

The grounds for intervention into Alison Law Solicitors LLP were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Ali and Habibur Rahman as managers of Alison Law Solicitors LLP in connection with the firm’s business (paragraph 1(2)(d)(i) of Schedule 14 to the Legal Services Act 2007).
• Ali and Rahman had failed to comply with the terms of the firm’s licence (paragraph 1(2)(a) of Schedule 14 to the act).

Due to the fact that the SRA has intervened on the grounds of reason to suspect dishonesty and failure to comply with rules, Ali’s practising certificate has been suspended. John Owen of Gordons LLP of 1 New Augustus Street, Bradford BD1 5LL (tel: 0113 227 0373  intervention@gordonsllp.com) has been appointed as intervention agent.