Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for 18 months from 9 October 2025. Upon the expiry of that term of suspension, the respondent should be subject to the following conditions imposed by the SDT: that she might not (i) practise as a sole practitioner or sole manager or sole owner of an authorised or recognised body; (ii) be a partner or member of a limited liability partnership, legal disciplinary practice, alternative business structure or other authorised or recognised body; (iii) be a head of legal practice/compliance officer for legal practice or a head of finance and administration/compliance officer for finance and administration, or a money laundering compliance officer or a money laundering reporting officer; or (iv) hold client money or be a signatory on any client account, with liberty to either party to apply to the SDT to vary those conditions. 

As a solicitor and as the manager, sole owner and the money laundering reporting officer of an authorised body (a recognised sole practice), namely Stefanie O’Bryen, trading as Watlington Solicitors since 10 August 2021, the respondent had failed to keep and maintain accurate accounting records for the firm, thereby breaching principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019 and rule 8.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019.

She had caused or allowed a shortage of up to £6,079.73 on the firm’s client account, thereby breaching principle 2, rule 5.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules and paragraph 4.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019. 

She had failed to have in place: (i) a firm-wide risk assessment (FWRA) as required by regulation 18 of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (MLRs 2017); and (ii) anti-money laundering policies, controls and procedures as required by regulation 19 of the MLRs 2017, thereby breaching principles 6, 7 and 8 of the SRA Principles 2011; failing to achieve outcome 7.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011; and breaching principle 2 and paragraphs 2.1(a) and 3.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms.

She had made a declaration to the SRA which was false and misleading, in that it confirmed that the firm had in place a fully compliant FWRA as required by regulation 18 of the MLRs 2017 when, in fact, there was no such FWRA in place, and had thereby acted in breach of principles 2 and 5, and paragraph 7.4 of the Code for Solicitors.

Between 1 January 2022 and 31 March 2022, and in relation to the purchase of a property by Client A, she had caused or allowed the firm to fail to comply with the MLRs 2017 in that the firm had: (i) failed to conduct adequate client due diligence measures as required by regulation 28 of the MLRs 2017, and (ii) had failed to apply enhanced due diligence as required by regulation 33 of the MLRs 2017, and had thereby acted in breach of principle 2 of the Principles.

She had caused or allowed ‘Asad Sahi’, ‘Edward Elkins’ and/or other persons known as the ‘London Group’ to be employed by or contracted with to conduct legal services at or on behalf of the firm without undertaking adequate due diligence as to their identity and qualifications, thereby breaching paragraph 3.6 of the Code for Solicitors and principles 2 and 7 of the Principles. 

Following the employment or engagement of the individuals identified in the allegation above, the respondent had failed to ensure that those individuals were effectively supervised in the provision of legal services, thereby breaching paragraph 3.5 of the Code for Solicitors, and principles 2 and 7. 

The respondent had admitted each of the allegations made against her in full. 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 SDT was satisfied that the sanction proposed by the parties was proportionate and accurately reflected the seriousness of the misconduct. Accordingly, it granted the application for the matter to be resolved by way of an agreed outcome.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £25,000.

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

While in practice as a solicitor, between January 2022 and April 2022, the respondent had provided information on his pupillage application that he knew was inaccurate and misleading by stating: (i) that he had attained a double first starred first degree; and (ii) that he had attained the ‘Slaughter and May Prize’ for best overall performance. He had thereby breached principles 2,4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019.

He had provided information to Dr Gehring which he knew was inaccurate and misleading by stating: (i) that he had not made an application to Erskine Chambers; and (ii) that he suspected he had been the victim of a practical joke. He had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and/or paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019 (the Code for Solicitors). 

The respondent had admitted all the allegations and breaches. 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 sole issue for determination, given that the facts had been admitted and found proved, was whether the case disclosed exceptional circumstances, such that a strike-off order should not follow in a case involving proven dishonesty. 

The respondent’s conduct in submitting a false application to Erskine Chambers was a deliberate and positive act, designed to gain advantage through the selection process. It was not a momentary lapse or a reaction to immediate pressure, but a sustained course of conduct. The respondent had had multiple opportunities to correct the dishonesty, including during two successive interviews and, in addition, in communications with his referee, but had chosen not to do so.

While the SDT accepted that the respondent was suffering from a depressive illness at the relevant time, it did not find that this impairment was sufficient to reduce his culpability to the extent required to establish exceptional circumstances. The dishonesty was not isolated, and the surrounding circumstances, though unusual, did not justify a departure from the presumptive sanction.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £6,110.

On 8 December 2025, the adjudicator resolved to intervene into the recognised bodies, Hathaways The Law Firm Ltd, 18-19 Regent Terrace, Gateshead NE8 1LU, and Samuel Phillips Law Firm, 18-24 Grey Street, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 6AE, and into the practice of Sufe Miah at these firms.

The ground for intervention in relation to Miah was: there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Miah in connection with his practice as a solicitor – paragraph 1(1)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

The grounds for intervention in relation to Hathaways were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Miah as a manager of Hathaways in connection with that firm’s business – paragraph 32(1)(d)(i) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended).
• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Miah, as a manager of Hathaways, in connection with the business of The Miah Solicitors Limited – paragraph 32(1)(d)(iv) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended).

The ground for intervention in relation to Samuel Phillips was:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Miah, as a manager of Samuel Phillips, in connection with the business of Hathaways and The Miah Solicitors Limited in which he is also a manager – paragraph 32(1)(d)(iv) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended).

John Owen of Gordons LLP, 1 New Augustus Street, Bradford BD1 5LL (tel: 0113 227 0372; email: SPH@gordonsllp.com) has been appointed to act as intervention agent. The first date of attendance was 10 December 2025.

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

On 10 December 2025, the SRA intervened into the practice of Shazad Javed and the recognised body, Pactum Law Limited, of Thames Tower, Station Road, Reading RG1 1LX.

The grounds for intervention into the practice of Javed were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on his part in connection with his practice as a solicitor – paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) Schedule 1 Solicitors Act 1974.
• Javed had failed to comply with the SRA Indemnity Insurance Rules (2019), which are rules made under section 37(2)(c) of the Solicitors Act 1974 – paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 Part I Solicitors Act 1974.

The grounds of intervention into Pactum Law Ltd were: 

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Javed, 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.
• Javed, as a manager of the firm, and the firm itself had failed to comply with the SRA Indemnity Insurance Rules (2019) which are rules applicable to them both by virtue of section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 – paragraph 32(1)(a) Schedule 2, Administration of Justice Act 1985.

Chris Evans of Lester Aldridge, Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth BH8 8EX (tel: 01202 786341; email: interventions@la-law.com) has been appointed as intervention agent.

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

Javed has given notice of his intention to issue proceedings in the High Court to set aside the intervention decision.

On 12 December 2025, an adjudicator panel resolved to intervene into the practice of Andrew Settle, including but not limited to his practice at Precision Solicitors Limited, 5th Floor Arkwright House, Parsonage Gardens, Manchester M3 2LF.

The ground for intervention was: it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients and any beneficiaries of any trust of which Settle is or was a trustee (paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 – Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974).

Emma Porter of Shakespeare Martineau (SHMA SRA Interventions, PO Box 18228, Birmingham B2 2HX, tel no: 0300 247 2470; email: precision-intervention@shma.co.uk). The intervention was effected on 17 December 2025.

Settle does not currently hold a practising certificate.