SDT decisions: 3 August 2026

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for two years from 7 May 2026. 

The respondent had provided inaccurate and/or misleading information on an application for professional indemnity insurance when he signed a proposal form to say that he was the sole signatory on the firm’s client account, when that was not true, thereby breaching paragraph 1.4 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors 2019 and principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles. He had acted recklessly.

The respondent had failed to notify the Solicitors Regulation Authority that the firm had entered the extended policy period and/or the cessation period. He had thereby breached rule 8.1 of the SRA Indemnity Insurance Rules 2019 and principles 2, 5 and 7. He had acted recklessly.

The respondent had carried on practice at the firm and had allowed the firm to continue to practise when it did not have a policy of qualifying PII, instead of effecting an orderly closure, thereby breaching rules 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 4.1 and 4.2 of the Indemnity Insurance Rules and principles 2, 5 and 7. He had acted recklessly.

He had failed to maintain or produce proper books of account, including appropriately recording dealings with client money and completing client account reconciliations, thereby breaching rules 8.1 and 8.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019, paragraph 4.2 of the Code for Solicitors 2019 and principle 2. He had acted recklessly.

The respondent had admitted the allegations in full.

The parties had invited the SDT to deal with the allegations against the respondent in accordance with the statement of agreed facts and proposed 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 conduct had posed a significant risk to clients and the reputation of the profession. In view of the seriousness of the misconduct, there was a need to protect both the public and the reputation of the profession from future harm by the respondent by removing his ability to practise, but those factors did not justify striking him off the roll. 

Public confidence in the profession required that he should be suspended from practice.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £24,727.30.

On 15 July 2026, a single adjudicator resolved to intervene into Sayers Solicitors Ltd and into the practice of Simon Langford, including but not limited to his practice at Sayers Solicitors Ltd, which was based at 242 High Road, Harrow Weald, Harrow HA3 7BB. 

The first date of attendance was 17 July 2026.

The ground for intervention into the individual practice of Simon Langford, including but not limited to his practice at Sayers Solicitors LLP (the firm), was:

• (i) Langford has been struck off the roll of solicitors (paragraph 1(1)(g) of schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended)).

The ground for intervention into the firm was:

• (i) it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients (or former or potential clients) of the firm (paragraph 32(1)(e) of schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended)).

Gordons LLP, 1 New Augustus Street, Bradford, BD1 5LL (email: intervention@gordonsllp.com; tel: 0113 227 0364), has been appointed to act as the Society’s agent.