- Civil Litigation
- Ethnic Minority Lawyers
- Human Rights
- Junior Lawyers
Risk and Compliance news stories
Regulator U-turns in response to recommendations of competition watchdog.
Stephen Chittenden removes himself from the roll after SRA probes his actions in 1980s murder investigation.
Appointments follow 'comprehensive procurement process', regulator says.
Regulator censures non-solicitors for acts of misconduct in two separate settlements.
SDT news stories
Scully, Brown and Nacarlo were ordered to pay costs of £15,000 on the basis of joint and several liability.
Broadbridge and Grimes were ordered to pay costs of £48,655, on the basis of joint and several liability.
Wilson was ordered to pay costs of £28,000.
Syed Tauseef Rizvi
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.