SDT decisions: 25 September 2026

The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 2006) and the second respondent should pay a fine of £4,500, on the basis of joint and several liability. 

While acting as the second respondent’s COLP, the first respondent had failed to ensure the second respondent’s compliance with the conditions imposed on its authorisation on 19 October 2022 until at least 11 November 2024, thereby breaching paragraphs 9.1(a) and 9.1(b) of the Code of Conduct for Firms 2019 and paragraph 7.10 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors.

Between 18 November 2022 and 11 March 2025, the first respondent had failed to cooperate with the SRA, thereby breaching paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 of the Code for Solicitors and principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019. 

Between 20 October 2022 and at least 11 November 2024, in respect of one or both of the second respondent’s websites, the second respondent had failed to publish any of the following information required by the SRA Transparency Rules 2018: (i) costs information, in breach of rules 1.1, 1.5 and 1.6; (ii) complaints information, in breach of rule 2.1; (iii) the second respondent’s SRA number, in breach of rule 4.1 and the second respondent’s SRA digital badge, in breach of rule 4.1, thereby breaching paragraphs 2.1(a) and 2.1(b) of the Code for Firms.

Between 20 October 2022 and at least 11 November 2024, the second respondent had failed to comply with the conditions imposed on its authorisation on 19 October 2022, thereby breaching paragraphs 3.2 and 3.4 of the Code for Firms.

The first respondent’s motivation for the misconduct was a form of professional inattention: he had not kept his focus on the matter and had not treated the breaches when pointed out to him with sufficient seriousness. The misconduct had been neither planned nor deliberate. The principal harm caused was to the reputation of the profession.

The breaches had ultimately been remediated, the non-compliant websites having been removed and a compliant website put in place. A financial penalty was the appropriate and proportionate sanction.

The SDT emphasised that engagement with the regulator is not merely a matter of courtesy but a professional requirement which must be taken seriously.

The first and second respondents were ordered to pay costs of £15,000, on the basis of joint and several liability.

The SDT ordered that the respondent – registered as a foreign lawyer in 2017 – should be suspended from practice for two years from 23 March 2026. 

While in practice as a registered foreign lawyer and partner at Jones Day LLP, on 4 July 2019, in response to being told that a search order to preserve evidence had been obtained against Client A and Person A, the respondent had given instructions of ‘burn it’ (or words similar) to Person B in respect of electronic material held by Client A, and which had led to a determination that he was criminally liable for contempt of court. 

He had thereby failed to achieve outcome 5.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 and had breached principles 1, 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. 

The respondent had admitted the allegations. 

The respondent’s motivation for the misconduct was to prevent embarrassment being caused to his wife. The respondent was frustrated and annoyed at himself for having permitted the line between his personal and professional life to become blurred. His motivation was not to implement a pre-arranged plan to destroy potentially relevant documents; his actions were not inspired by a conspiracy, but rather a spontaneous act of ‘colossal stupidity’. 

His culpability was therefore assessed as medium. His actions had nevertheless constituted a clear breach of the search order and had thereby caused harm to the proceedings and to the parties, and to the reputation of the profession. In particular, the determination that the respondent was criminally liable for contempt of court had significantly undermined public confidence in the profession and had aggravated his misconduct. 

In mitigation, the respondent had cooperated with the applicant throughout. His misconduct had constituted a single episode of very brief duration within the context of a previously unblemished professional career. He had demonstrated insight, remorse and remediation. 

A lengthy suspension from the roll was the appropriate penalty in the case.

Having regard to the particular circumstances, including the absence of dishonesty; the respondent’s insight and remorse; his previously unblemished career; and the isolated nature of the misconduct, the protection of the public and the maintenance of public confidence in the profession did not require that the respondent be struck off. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £20,000.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £17,500. 

While in practice as a solicitor and sole practitioner through the entity at CGW Law, during July 2022, the respondent had attempted to take unfair advantage of Person M’s position as a litigant in person by repeatedly asking her for her contact details when he knew or ought to have known that: (i) Person M did not want to provide him with that information; (ii) Person M had no legal duty to provide him with that information; and (iii) he did not need that information to progress his client’s matter, thereby breaching principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraph 1.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs. 

During July 2022, he had obtained contact details for Person M by means of a private investigator and had then disclosed those contact details to his client when he knew or ought to have known that: (i) obtaining Person M’s likely contact details was not necessary; (ii) Person M would not have consented to her contact details being obtained by such means; and (iii) the relevant Family Procedure Rules directed that Person M was entitled to withhold her contact details until directed to disclose them by a court order, thereby breaching principles 1, 2 and 5, and paragraph 1.2 of the code. 

The respondent had demonstrated an unnecessarily partisan approach which had at times compromised his professional objectivity. 

While it was accepted that the respondent had been motivated by what he had perceived to be the interests of his client, Person B, and by a mistaken belief that he was entitled to take the steps he had in order to advance his client’s objectives within the family proceedings, that did not materially reduce the seriousness of the misconduct. 

The potential for harm arising from the misconduct was clear. The Family Procedure Rules protected parties and children in family proceedings where issues of safeguarding, risk of domestic abuse and domestic abuse frequently arose. The respondent had circumvented those procedural safeguards and disclosed confidential contact information outside the court process.

A financial penalty was appropriate. A fine of £17,500 was commensurate with and proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £15,000.

On 7 September 2026, the SRA intervened into the recognised body Traymans LLP. The firm had one office at 87 Stoke Newington Road, London N16 8AA. The firm lost authorisation on 9 March 2025 and ceased trading on 6 July 2026. 

The firm had one member when it closed, Timothy Mutti. Mutti’s individual practice is not subject to intervention.

The recognised body’s authorisation has expired and no further recognition of it has been granted – paragraph 34(1), Schedule 2, Administration of Justice Act 1985.

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