Risk and Compliance Service

Risk and Compliance news stories

SDT news stories

  • SDT: ​Patricia Rosaleen Scully, Alasdair James Brown and Steven Nacarlo

    Scully, Brown and Nacarlo were ordered to pay costs of £15,000 on the basis of joint and several liability.

  • SDT: ​Frederick Brian Broadbridge and Stephen Peter Grimes

    Broadbridge and Grimes were ordered to pay costs of £48,655, on the basis of joint and several liability.

  • SDT: John Barrie Wilson

    Wilson was ordered to pay costs of £28,000.

  • SDT: ​Syed Tauseef Rizvi

    Syed Tauseef Rizvi

    • Application 11567-2016
    • Admitted 2008
    • Hearing 25 April 2017
    • Reasons 18 May 2017

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

    The respondent had provided the court and his opponent in litigation with material stating that he had served his client’s defence in the matter when that was untrue, in breach of principles 1, 2, 4 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. In so doing, he had been dishonest.

    The respondent had created and backdated letters to the court and to his opponent in litigation, in breach of principles 2, 4 and 6. In so doing, he had been dishonest.

    The respondent had asked his client representative to backdate a defence, to conceal the fact that he had not filed and served his client’s defence in time and to resist the claimant’s request for judgment in default, in breach of principles 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. In so doing, he had been dishonest.

    The respondent had failed to file and serve a defence on behalf of his client, the Ministry of Justice within the deadline, and had failed to report that fact to the Treasury Solicitor’s department, in breach of principles 4 and 5.

    The public and the profession would not find it acceptable that a solicitor had tried to mislead a court, a professional opponent and colleagues. The respondent’s actions had caused public money to be spent on putting matters right.

    The most notable aggravating feature of the case was the respondent’s dishonesty. His misconduct could not be described as a ‘one off’ or as having occurred in a moment of madness. It was far from trivial misconduct. In the circumstances, there were no exceptional circumstances which could justify a lesser sanction than striking off.

    The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £4,000.

Benefits of Membership*

Risk and Compliance community graphic
  • A monthly Risk and Compliance e-newsletter, dealing with the latest regulatory and compliance issues
  • Access to the Law Society’s 'Safe Harbour' initiative, providing written guidance to compliance officers on the materiality of a breach
  • Access to four free webinars

As well as:

  • 20 per cent discount on subscriptions to the Legal Compliance Bulletin
  • 20 per cent discount on relevant Law Society publications

* See Service terms and conditions

Join today