Decisions and interventions

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

While in practice as a solicitor at Aviva Investors, on 31 August 2022, the respondent had submitted a curriculum vitae to Robert Walters, a recruitment agency, which he knew or ought to have known contained false and misleading information, in the knowledge that it would be forwarded on to Squire Patton Boggs (UK) LLP. 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.

On 27 October 2022, during a meeting with Squire Patton Boggs (UK) LLP, the respondent had provided a curriculum vitae to RB which he knew or ought to have known contained false and misleading information. In doing so, he had breached principles 2, 4 and 5 and paragraph 1.4 of the code.

On 27 February 2023, the respondent had provided a curriculum vitae and an accompanying table of discrepancies to Aviva Investors which he knew or ought to have known contained false and misleading information. In doing so, he had breached principles 2, 4 and 5 and paragraph 1.4 of the code.

On 27 March 2023, the respondent had made a verbal statement to Aviva Investors that Leicester Grammar School and Crown Hills School had previously merged when he knew or ought to have known that this statement was misleading. In doing so, he had breached principles 2, 4 and 5 and paragraph 1.4 of the code.

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’s misconduct included instances of dishonesty occurring between 31 August 2022 and 27 March 2023, involving interactions with several individuals. The respondent had sought to benefit by providing untrue information about his education and qualifications to secure employment. The misconduct was deliberate and repeated, and of the utmost seriousness. 

His mitigation was noted; he had made full admissions and had cooperated with his regulator. His admissions demonstrated insight. 

In light of the dishonesty, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll. There were no exceptional circumstances that would justify a lesser sanction.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £5,313.

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

While in practice as a director at Insight Law LLP/Insight Legal Services Ltd, the respondent had given instructions to the firm in connection with the sale of a property he held as beneficial joint tenants with Geraint Jones on the basis that he had authority to give instructions on behalf of GJ, when he had no such authority, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2019. He had acted dishonestly. 

He had provided instructions to the firm to pay the net proceeds from the sale of the property to his own bank account, without GJ’s consent, and had failed to account to GJ for his interest from the net proceeds of sale, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6. He had acted dishonestly. 

In a text on 15 September 2017, he had misled GJ regarding the property by indicating that he had to sell the property and that ‘hopefully be sold soon and I can send you some cash’, in circumstances when he knew any or all of the following facts relating to the sale of the property at the time: (i) a sale had already been agreed with BJT and ALT; (ii) contracts for the sale of the property had already been exchanged; (iii) completion had already taken place and he had already received payment that day in the sum of £32,400.55 from the sale proceeds. He had thereby breached principles 2 and 6.

The respondent was primarily motivated by his resentment towards GJ, and his secondary motivation was the prospect of financial gain. 

The respondent’s conduct was aggravated by his dishonesty, which was deliberate, calculated and repeated. It had continued over a period of time, including some months after the property had been sold. He had sought to place the blame for his conduct on others. 

Given the serious nature of the allegations, the SDT had considered and rejected the lesser sanctions within its sentencing powers. 

It had not found any circumstances 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 had involved dishonesty, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent off the roll.

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

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll. The respondent, former sole principal of Fortitude Law, had faced 17 allegations of professional misconduct arising from his handling of numerous medical negligence and product liability claims on behalf of several clients, between 2015 and 2023. 

The allegations included dishonesty, misleading clients and other parties, poor service and serious regulatory breaches. The SRA closed the firm on 17 May 2023, after an intervention triggered by suspected dishonesty at the firm.

The respondent had admitted allegations 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14 and 17. 

The SDT had reviewed the documentary evidence and was satisfied that the allegations and the admissions were clear, unequivocal and properly made, and that the evidence supported those admissions. Accordingly, the admitted allegations, which included dishonest conduct, had been found proved on the balance of probabilities.

The SDT had found all the remaining allegations, namely 2, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15 and 16, proved on the balance of probabilities, including dishonesty.

The respondent’s conduct had been deplorable. There had been a profound failure to protect his clients’ interests. His misconduct had been deliberate, calculated and repeated over a long period and had caused significant harm to his clients and colleagues. He had, in the most egregious way, abused his position of power and authority. He had been motivated by financial gain.

The respondent had only partially accepted the extent of his misconduct, notwithstanding that he admitted dishonesty and the consequences which flowed from it. While there was a degree of insight in his written mitigation statement, it did not reflect the level of remorse demanded by his profound and sustained misconduct. 

The respondent had not submitted that there were any exceptional circumstances to modify the sanction to be imposed. Given the profoundly dishonest nature of the respondent’s conduct, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike him off the roll. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £114,821. 

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll. While in practice as a solicitor at Buckles Solicitors LLP, between 23 September 2022 and 23 November 2023, the respondent had made statements to clients, colleagues, and others in correspondence and/or in telephone conversations which she knew or ought to have known were misleading in that she had told them that she had submitted applications for Grants of Probate (GOPs); and that she had chased with the Probate Registry applications for GOPs when she had not done so. She had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles and paragraphs 1.4 and 3.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLS.

The respondent had admitted the allegations, including that her conduct was dishonest in breach of principle 4.

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 parties submitted that the outcome proposed was consistent with the SDT’s Guidance Note on Sanctions (11th edition – February 2025).

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 dishonest conduct was deliberate, calculated and had been repeated over a period of more than a year. The respondent had created a substantial risk of serious harm to her clients.

She had tried to conceal her wrongdoing as she had not stated when asked that she had not submitted the GOP applications nor chased the Probate Registry.

In light of the dishonesty, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the respondent’s name from the roll. The SDT had not found any exceptional circumstances that would justify a lesser sanction. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £5,000. 

On 20 April 2026, an adjudication panel resolved to intervene into the above-named practice of Jennifer Owusu-Barnieh, including but not limited to her practice at Danbar Solicitors Ltd, and into Danbar Solicitors Ltd itself, from premises based at 43 Collingwood Road, Uxbridge UB8 3EJ. The intervention was effected on 21 April 2026. The ground for intervention into the practice of Owusu-Barnieh was: 

• It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients and any beneficiaries of any trust of which Owusu-Barnieh is or was a trustee (paragraph 1(1)(m) of Schedule 1 – Part I to the Solicitors Act 1974).

The ground for intervention into Danbar Solicitors Ltd was:

• It was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients or former clients, the interests of 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 32(1)(e) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985). No intervention agent was appointed.

On 1 April, the SRA intervened into the practice of Sanjay Sundeep Singh Panesar and into the recognised body, Rainer Hughes. The firm’s head office was at 182 Hutton Road, Shenfield CM15 8NR and it had two branch offices at 186 Hutton Road, Shenfield CM15 8NR and Holborn Gate, 330 High Holborn, London WC1V 7QT. 

The grounds for intervention into Panesar’s practice were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on his part in connection with his practice at Rainer Hughes – paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) Schedule 1, Part I, Solicitors Act 1974.
• Panesar had failed to comply with the SRA Accounts Rules 2019, which are rules made under sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 – paragraph 1(1)(c) Schedule 1, Part I, Solicitors Act 1974.

The grounds for intervention into Rainer Hughes were:

• There was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Panesar as a manager of Rainer Hughes (‘the firm’) in connection with the firm’s business – paragraph 32(1)(d) Schedule 2, Administration of Justice Act 1985.
• Panesar, as a manager of the firm, and the firm itself had failed to comply with the SRA Accounts 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.

Panesar’s practising certificate is suspended by reason of the intervention.

Sean Joyce of Stephensons, Wigan Investment Centre, Waterside Drive, Wigan WN3 5BA (tel: 0333 321 4401; email: interventions@stephensons.co.uk), has been appointed as intervention agent.