SDT decisions: 2 October 2026

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be reprimanded.

While in practice as a solicitor at Shahzads Law Ltd, on or around 10 January 2022, the respondent had failed to disclose in a Call Declaration Form submitted to Lincoln’s Inn that he was subject to an SRA investigation which had commenced on 5 November 2020, thereby breaching principle 2 of the SRA Principles and paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

Between approximately 7 June 2022 and 16 February 2023, he had failed to disclose to the Inn’s Conduct Committee that he was subject to an SRA Investigation, thereby breaching principle 2 and paragraph 1.4 of the code.

The respondent had admitted the allegations.

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the respondent in accordance with the agreed outcome proposal 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 noted that the misconduct had not been deliberate, but the result of carelessness. The respondent had sought to correct the position by volunteering the information. The level of culpability was low. No identifiable harm had been caused to any individual and the risk of any such harm was negligible. The tribunal noted that the respondent had displayed genuine insight into his misconduct and assessed the likelihood of future misconduct of a similar nature as being low.

A reprimand was appropriate in all the circumstances. The parties had proposed a reprimand. Accordingly, the SDT had approved the agreed outcome proposal.

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

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

While in practice as a consultant solicitor working for seven different firms, between 8 October 2021 and 4 December 2022, the respondent had requested and received client money from his client (Client A) directly into his personal bank account and/or in cash, thereby breaching principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles, paragraph 4.3 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors and rule 2.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules.

Between 29 September 2021 and 2 December 2022, the respondent had undertaken reserved legal work and representation of a client as a solicitor in criminal defence proceedings, other than through an SRA-authorised firm or recognised sole practice, thereby breaching principles 2 and 5 and regulation 10.2(b) of the SRA Authorisation of Individuals Regulations.

On or about 2 December 2022, the respondent had provided misleading information to the court and the Crown Prosecution Service, when he had submitted a ‘Form NG Sentence’ to the court dated 2 December 2022 which had stated that his client was being represented by the firm Carters in his criminal proceedings, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 and paragraph 1.4 of the code.

The respondent had admitted all the allegations and the breaches that were applicable to each.

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 admitted misconduct was serious. It had involved dishonesty and lack of integrity. It had not been isolated, having occurred over a period of approximately a year. The conduct had been deliberate and repeated.

In circumstances where dishonesty had been admitted, the SDT would consider whether there were any exceptional circumstances which would justify a sanction short of strike-off. It had found that there were none. Strike-off was the appropriate and proportionate sanction.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £22,000.

 The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice for 18 months from 15 May 2026.

Upon the expiry of that term of suspension, the respondent should be subject to the following conditions imposed by the SDT: that he might not (i) practise as a sole practitioner or sole manager or sole owner of an authorised or recognised body, or as a solicitor in an unregulated organisation; (ii) be a partner or member of a limited liability partnership, legal disciplinary practice, or 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; (iv) hold client money; (v) be a signatory on any client account; (vi) or work as a solicitor other than in employment approved by the Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd; with liberty to either party to apply to the SDT to vary the above conditions.

While in practice as a solicitor at Simpkins & Co Solicitors, the respondent had caused or allowed the firm to have a minimum client account shortage of £145,900 in relation to client A, thereby breaching (i) principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019; (ii) rules 5.1, 5.2, and 6.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019 and (iii) paragraphs 4.2 and 5.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019.

He had caused or allowed the firm to have a minimum client account shortage of £15,913.78 in relation to client B, thereby breaching (i) principles 2 and 5; (ii) rules 5.1, 5.2, and 6.1 of the Accounts Rules; and (iii) paragraphs 4.2 and 5.2 of the code.

As the firm’s sole manager, COLP and COFA, the respondent had failed to have sufficient control and adequate supervision or oversight of the firm, thereby breaching (i) principles 2 and 5 and (ii) paragraphs 2.1 and 8.1 of the Code of Conduct for Firms 2019.

He had provided information to the forensic investigation officer of the SRA regarding the financial status of the firm that he knew/ought to have known was inaccurate and/or misleading, thereby breaching principles 2 and 5.

The respondent had caused direct harm to his clients and to the reputation of the profession. His misconduct was aggravated by the period of time over which it had continued.

It was necessary to protect both the public and the reputation of the profession from future harm by removing the respondent’s ability to practise. A fixed-term suspension of 18 months adequately reflected the seriousness of the misconduct. Further, it was appropriate to impose restrictions on the respondent’s ability to practise at the conclusion of his suspension.

No order was made as to costs.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be reprimanded.

While in practice as a solicitor and partner at David Barney & Co, acting for client A in a transfer of property X, the respondent had failed to provide client A with any adequate information regarding the terms of his instruction and client care arrangements, or advice on the transaction, thereby breaching paragraphs 3.2, 3.4 and 8.6 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs; and principles 2 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

While the respondent had failed to provide client A with adequate information, the misconduct had arisen in the context of a single conveyancing transaction and had not involved dishonesty, lack of integrity, manifest incompetence, or any personal gain. The respondent had made appropriate admissions, had co-operated fully throughout the investigation and proceedings, had demonstrated genuine insight into his failings and had had an otherwise unblemished career.

The misconduct was too serious to warrant taking no action. The respondent’s failures concerned fundamental obligations owed to a client and had the potential to undermine public confidence in the profession if left without regulatory sanction. However, the misconduct was at the lower end of the spectrum of seriousness and there were no aggravating features. The respondent’s failings had been isolated to a single matter, had occurred during the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, and had not been repeated.

Having balanced those factors, the SDT was satisfied that a reprimand represented a fair and proportionate sanction. It appropriately marked the seriousness of the respondent’s misconduct, maintained public confidence in the profession and upheld proper professional standards, while properly reflecting the isolated nature of the failings, the substantial mitigation advanced on the respondent’s behalf and the absence of any need to impose a more restrictive sanction.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £6,000.

 The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for 12 months from 20 February 2026.

As a solicitor, while in practice as a partner at SBP Law, the respondent had made comments that were offensive, inappropriate, and/or discriminatory in that they were racist or antisemitic, to colleagues at firm parties in October and December 2021, thereby breaching paragraphs 1.1 and 1.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019 and principles 2, 5 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2019.

He had made comments that were inappropriate, unwanted, and/or sexual either to or about his colleagues at firm parties, thereby breaching paragraphs 1.1 and 1.5 of the SRA Code and principles 2, 5 and 6. His conduct was sexually motivated.

He had touched several of his colleagues in an inappropriate, unwanted, and/or sexual manner at a firm Christmas party, thereby breaching paragraph 1.1 and Paragraph 1.5 of the SRA Code and principles 2, 5 and 6. His conduct was sexually motivated.

In relation to the motivation for the misconduct at the firm events, the respondent had been disinhibited by significant alcohol consumption and his conduct had occurred in that context.

In considering the extent to which the misconduct had arisen from actions which were planned or spontaneous, the respondent should have taken steps and assumed greater personal responsibility to ensure that his conduct at the October event had not been repeated at the subsequent event in December.

The respondent’s position of seniority at the firm had increased his culpability.

In circumstances where experts had agreed that the principal contributor to the respondent’s behaviour had been his alcohol consumption, and that, absent such consumption, the misconduct would not have occurred, while his culpability would otherwise have fallen within the high category, it was reduced to the medium category.

The respondent’s conduct had caused understandable distress to his colleagues and the overall level of harm, including reputational harm, was high. His misconduct was deliberate and repeated, and his overall insight was limited.

The respondent had indicated a willingness to undertake remedial training prior to any return to practice. Such steps would be appropriate. A suspension from the roll was the appropriate penalty.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs to be assessed unless otherwise agreed.