Venkateshwarlu Bandla

  • Application 11589-2016
  • Admitted 2007
  • Hearing 9 May 2017
  • Reasons 22 June 2017

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

The respondent had misled the SRA regarding a professional indemnity policy for his firm, thereby breaching principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011. In so doing, he had acted dishonestly.

The respondent had abandoned and failed to effect an orderly wind-down of his firm and failed to inform clients of the firm or the SRA of the closure, thereby breaching principles 2, 6, 7, 8 and 10 and failing to achieve outcome 10.13 of the SRA Code of Conduct.

The respondent had failed to obtain professional indemnity insurance for the 2015/16 practising year, thereby breaching principles 4, 6 and 8.

While there was no evidence of loss or harm caused to clients, the respondent had caused harm to the reputation of the profession by deliberately and dishonestly misleading the SRA in order to conceal the true position concerning his lack of indemnity insurance for the year 2015/16.

He had failed to co-operate with his regulator and had simply abandoned his firm, showing a complete disregard for his professional obligations to his clients and to the SRA.

There were no exceptional circumstances in the case. The appropriate sanction to protect the public and the reputation of the profession was to strike the respondent off the roll. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £7,553.