SDT: Concern over lack of candour
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has rejected a second application to return to the roll from a solicitor struck off for dishonesty, less than a year after it rejected his first.
Raj Rajan Mariaddan was struck off in February 2022, meaning that the application was also made within the six-year period which “save in the most exceptional circumstances” was “likely to be considered premature”.
The SDT was particularly concerned by the “lack of candour” shown by Mr Mariaddan during the proceedings in putting a Ms Rajan forward as “a person to whom he had provided legal assistance”.
It emerged during the hearing that she was also his carer and former wife.
The failure to declare that relationship “in a clear and transparent manner before or during the hearing did not assist him in demonstrating the degree of candour expected in restoration proceedings”.
The tribunal was similarly unimpressed by Mr Mariaddan’s references to an “unblemished career”, notwithstanding his regulatory history and a judge’s findings in separate civil proceedings in 2017 that he had lied and given false evidence.
The former solicitor argued that he had maintained his professional knowledge and competence since being struck off, relying, among other things, on “an ethics course which he stated he had undertaken”.
The SDT said the “only documentary evidence produced in respect of the ethics course was a record of payment to a course provider and a very small payment at that”.
No “independent documentary evidence” of attendance or successful completion was produced.
The tribunal similarly “did not see any records, learning logs or other evidence demonstrating a structured programme of study or continuing professional development”.
Mr Mariaddan, who qualified in 1995, was struck off for lying about not having a bank account or any income other than benefits to avoid having to repay a debt to the Legal Aid Agency.
Mrs Justice Foster dismissed his appeal the following year, recording that Mr Mariaddan had made “very many and intricate criticisms” of the SDT but she found no substance in any of them.
The tribunal rejected his first application to return to the roll in November 2025, noting that Mr Mariaddan had “repeatedly characterised the decision to strike him off as ‘draconian’ and maintained that the proceedings were unjust”.
In his latest application, he argued that he had “demonstrated insight, remorse, and rehabilitation since strike-off”, relying on “reflective work, training, assistance said to have been provided to others following his removal from the roll, and evidence from those who knew him personally”.
He “relied significantly” on medical evidence, submitting that the tribunal “should take account of his history of cardiac arrest, stroke, and cognitive difficulties”.
Mr Mariaddan accepted that his application seemed premature but argued that exceptional circumstances existed; opposing his application, the Solicitors Regulation Authority disagreed.
The SDT said it was not satisfied that his evidence had shown “substantial and satisfactory employment or involvement in legal work capable of providing persuasive evidence of rehabilitation following findings of dishonesty”.
A “significant proportion” of it related “either to litigation arising from his own affairs (some involving him as a party) or to assistance provided in matters involving individuals known to him personally”.
Mr Mariaddan had failed to provide evidence of any “current or sufficiently developed pathway back into regulated practice”, nor was the tribunal satisfied that there were “any identified arrangements capable of providing appropriate supervision or support following restoration”.
The SDT was not persuaded that he had shown “the degree of insight, reflection and self-awareness ordinarily expected of an applicant seeking restoration following findings of dishonesty”.
It explained: “In particular, certain aspects of his evidence tended to minimise his own responsibility and draw attention instead to that of others and focus upon matters relating to his former business partner, the intervention into his practice and the consequences which he himself had suffered.”
Mr Mariaddan’s application was refused and he was ordered to pay costs of £5,000. He has not paid the costs from the first refusal last year.
Leave a Comment