Decisions and interventions

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

The respondent had obtained a loan of £5,000 for his company, Sentium Group Ltd, by misrepresentation in that he had provided false information to the loan company, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. He had acted dishonestly. 

The respondent had falsely represented to counsel’s clerk that he had authorised payment of counsel’s fees in the sum of £1,200 when he had not done so, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019.

The respondent had failed to cooperate with the SRA in relation to the ongoing investigation against him, thereby breaching principle 5 and paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors.

The SDT concluded that the respondent’s conduct in taking out the loan was financially motivated. His actions were calculated and deliberate. In his correspondence with the loan company, he had admitted the harm caused to his co-director and had further acknowledged wrongdoing, albeit short of dishonesty. 

However, the SDT found that the respondent’s conduct, both in obtaining the loan and in making false representations to chambers regarding the payment of fees that were never paid, was clearly dishonest.

The SDT, having determined that the respondent’s conduct was dishonest, observed that its finding of dishonesty would, absent exceptional circumstances, require an order striking the respondent from the roll. 

The SDT could not find exceptional circumstances justifying any lesser sanction other than a striking-off. Therefore, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £7,603.

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

He had misled A by agreeing to act as a solicitor for her partner, B, in conducting B’s criminal appeal proceedings, when he did not hold a practising certificate and was therefore not authorised to act as a solicitor. 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 2019.

He had obtained funds from A in the sum of £4,525 for him to act as a solicitor in relation to B’s potential criminal appeal proceedings when he did not hold a practising certificate and was therefore not authorised to act as a solicitor, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 and paragraph 1.4 of the code.

Having obtained those funds he had failed to return the money to A and had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5.

He had personally held client monies when he was not permitted to do so, in breach of paragraph 4.3.

The respondent’s culpability was high. His conduct had not been a single lapse of judgement but a sustained course of dishonest behaviour. The harm caused had been both individual and public. It was, therefore, a case of the highest level of seriousness.

The SDT had carefully considered whether any exceptional circumstances existed that could justify a sanction less than striking off. The respondent’s mitigation included that he had suffered significant personal difficulties, such as periods of homelessness and instability. 

Exceptional circumstances had to relate directly to the dishonesty itself. While the respondent’s personal difficulties were serious and relevant to his overall conduct, they did not negate the deliberate and sustained nature of the dishonesty, nor its impact on the client and public confidence in the profession. 

Accordingly, the SDT had concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances sufficient to justify a lesser sanction. The misconduct had involved clear dishonesty, deliberate exploitation of a member of the public, and a misuse of professional status over an extended period. Striking the respondent off the roll was the only proportionate sanction. In view of the respondent’s financial circumstances, there was no order as to costs.

On 24 December 2025, the SRA intervened into the practice of Mohammad Munshat Habib Chowdhury and the licensed body, Lawyer Up Group (UK) LLP, of 20-22 Wenlock Road, London N1 7GU.

The grounds for intervention into the practice of Chowdhury: were: 

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on Chowdhury’s part in connection with his practice as a solicitor – paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974.
• Chowdhury had failed to comply with rules – paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 to the act.

The grounds for intervention into Lawyer Up Group (UK) LLP were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Chowdhury as a manager of the firm in connection with the firm’s business – paragraph 1(2)(d)(i) Schedule 14, 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, Legal Services Act 2007.

Chowdhury’s practising certificate has been suspended by reason of the intervention.

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

On 22 January 2026, the adjudicator resolved to intervene into the above-named recognised body, formerly based at 3 Bridle Way, Houghton Le Spring DH5 8NQ. The sole manager at the firm was Sean Naughton.

The firm closed on 30 April 2025 and was subject to a voluntary winding up order on 24 July 2025.

The grounds for intervention were: a relevant insolvency event had occurred in relation to Naughtons Solicitors LLP – (paragraph 32(1)(c) 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 0383; email: intervention@gordonsllp.com) has been appointed to act as intervention agent. The intervention notice was served on 26 January.

The SRA will be making the necessary arrangements to take possession of the firm’s electronic archived files.