Decisions and interventions

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

While in practice as a solicitor at Document Certifier Ltd, a non-SRA-regulated law firm of Office One, 1 Coldbath Square, London EC1R 5HL, from at least 25 June 2021 to 18 August 2022, the respondent had certified documents as being true copies of originals seen by him by certifying copies of uploaded and/or scanned documents provided to him through the website documentcertifier.com, when he had not seen the original documents.

From 18 August 2022 to 30 September 2022, the respondent had breached the terms of a regulatory settlement agreement with the SRA dated 18 August 2022; and after 18 August 2022, he had continued to advertise a certification service on the website in that he had continued to certify documents as being true copies of original documents seen by him, when he had not seen the original documents.

By doing so, the respondent had breached principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraphs 1.4, 7.2 and 7.3 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs. 

The respondent’s motivation for setting up the website and offering certification services was self-interest. He was in a position of trust as a solicitor certifying documents for members of the public and he had breached that trust with every certification. The guidance was clear that he could not certify documents without seeing original documents, but he had chosen to rely on his own interpretation, which the SDT had found to be incorrect. 

The respondent had caused harm to his clients as they had been provided with purportedly certified documents, which in reality could not be relied upon. He had brought the reputation of the legal profession into disrepute. His misconduct was aggravated in that it was deliberate, calculated and repeated, and had taken place over a long period of time.  

There were no factors to mitigate the seriousness of the respondent’s misconduct. He had shown no remorse or understanding of the extent of the harm he had caused. He had steadfastly relied throughout his case on his own understanding of certification, which was incorrect.

In view of the seriousness of the misconduct, the appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent’s name from the roll. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £35,640.

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

While in practice as a solicitor at Cullimore Dutton Solicitors Limited (i) on or around 6 July 2022, when acting for company A in a property transaction, the respondent had certified that copies of identification documents for person A, company A’s director, were true and complete copies of the original documents, when he had not recently or at all seen the original documents; (ii) he had provided the certified copy documents to another party in the transaction when asked to ‘… supply copy colour photo identification (passport/photocard driving licence) … certified by your firm for each borrower, director, shareholder, beneficial owner and person with significant control’; and (iii) in doing so, he had breached principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019, and paragraph 1.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs. The respondent’s conduct was dishonest.

In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the SDT had determined that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent from the roll. 

The SDT had found that the respondent misrepresented several times that he certified the documents at the firm. His motivation was unclear, though it might have been to smooth the process along without following the correct procedure in order to minimise any possible delay. His failure to certify the documents in the correct way could have been nothing but a planned course of action. 

The harm caused by the respondent’s misconduct was serious and significant, and could have resulted in the property transaction not completing as it should have done. There was obvious damage to the reputation of the legal profession and potential direct harm to the parties of the transaction. The respondent had departed from ‘the complete integrity, probity and trustworthiness’ expected of a solicitor.

Given the serious nature of the allegations which it had found proved, including dishonesty, the SDT had adopted the most appropriate and proportionate sanction sufficient to mark the seriousness of the misconduct and protect the public. 

Weighing up all the factors, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll. There were no circumstances that were enough to bring the respondent in line with the exceptional circumstances category referred to in Solicitors Regulation Authority v Sharma [2010] EWHC 2022 Admin. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £30,480, such order not to be enforced without leave of the SDT.

On 25 February 2026, the SRA intervened into the practice of Ali Hassan Newaz, including his practice at Woodford Wise of Salisbury House, 29 Finsbury Circus, London EC2M 5QQ.

The grounds for intervention were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Newaz in connection with his practice at the firm – paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) Schedule 1, Part I Solicitors Act 1974.
• Newaz had failed to comply with the SRA Accounts Rules (2019), which are rules made under section 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 – paragraph 1(1)(c) Schedule 1, Part I Solicitors Act 1974.

Newaz’s practising certificate was suspended as a result of the intervention decision.

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