Palmer: Referral to SDT was lawful
The High Court has dismissed an appeal by a solicitor-turned-barrister against a £20,000 fine imposed on him by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) back in 2020.
Robert Palmer KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, said the delay by Zeeshan Mian of over five and a half years in filing the appeal was “both serious and significant”, and there would have to be very compelling reasons to justify extending the time.
“Here there are none,” he said.
Mr Mian qualified as a solicitor advocate in Pakistan before being admitted as a solicitor in England and Wales in 2007, setting up Denning Solicitors in East London the following year.
The SDT fined Mr Mian £20,000 in February 2020 and imposed conditions on his practicing certificate (PC) preventing him from being a law firm owner for two years.
He had displayed “manifest incompetence” in employing a disbarred barrister as a consultant at his law firm without checking his identity or record, and also allowed his firm’s client account to be used as a banking facility.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) told him in December 2015 that it was starting an investigation and imposed conditions on his PC in 2016. It closed down Denning Solicitors in October 2016.
Mr Mian applied to transfer to the Bar in February 2016, providing a certificate of good standing from the SRA issued before it had begun the investigation.
He was disbarred in 2022 for failing to inform Lincoln’s Inn or the Bar Standards Board that he was the subject of investigation and disciplinary action as a solicitor, a decision upheld by the High Court.
In September 2026, the SDT struck off Mr Mian for failing to declare his regulatory history as a solicitor when applying to be admitted to the Bar. He has separately appealed against this.
Mr Mian, who represented himself, argued that the SDT in 2020 had no jurisdiction to determine the allegations or impose any sanctions on him because the “complaints against him had already been finally determined by the SRA” by imposing the PC conditions.
Mr Mian justified his application for a time extension “on the grounds that certain evidence, which was not before the SDT” was disclosed to him between June and August 2025.
Judge Palmer said the recent disclosure of investigation files and documents did not alter the position.
“No application for specific disclosure was advanced before the SDT. Nor did the appellant continue to pursue such disclosure after the SDT’s determination: between 2021 and 2025 he made no efforts to pursue it.”
Moreover, the documents now relied upon by Mr Mian, assuming them to be admissible, did not establish “even an arguable case that the initial referral of disciplinary proceedings to the SDT in 2018 was unlawful”.
The former solicitor’s case was “premised upon a misunderstanding of the statutory scheme” created by the Solicitors Act 1974, and the imposition of conditions on his PC by the SRA was “incapable of affecting its power” to refer him to the SDT.
Mr Mian was in any event wrong to contend that the closure of an administrative file would have the consequence – as a matter of law – that the SRA would be unable later to refer him to the SDT.
The judge concluded that given the seriousness of the delay, the lack of good reason for it, and the need to deal justly with the application, “including the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost and to enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and orders”, meant there was “no basis” to extend time to bring the appeal.
“Moreover, even if I were otherwise persuaded to extend time, I would dismiss the appeal on its merits.
“The referral to the SDT was lawfully made, and the SDT had had full jurisdiction to determine the matter before it and to make such orders as it saw fit.”
Leave a Comment