SDT: Premature application
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has refused a solicitor’s bid to be restored to the roll just three years after being struck off for dishonesty.
The tribunal noted that although Raj Mariaddan said he accepted the outcome, he “repeatedly characterised the decision to strike him off as ‘draconian’ and maintained that the proceedings were unjust”.
The SDT went on: “He felt that he should never have been investigated, let alone prosecuted (notwithstanding that the allegations against him had been found proved).
“His assertion of acceptance was undermined by his refusal to acknowledge the correctness of the findings and sanction, and his failure to demonstrate a clear understanding of the ethical standards expected of solicitors.”
The tribunal said there was “a particularly high hurdle” when seeking restoration following findings of dishonesty and Mr Mariaddan “did not surmount” it.
Mr Mariaddan, who qualified in 1995, was a sole practitioner in North London until April 2019 and then took on a partner, operating as John Street Solicitors.
In 2022, the SDT struck him 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 (LAA). He also misled a potential professional indemnity insurer about his regulatory history – he had previously been sanctioned twice by the SDT – and then practised without insurance.
The High Court rejected his appeal in February 2023, noting that the solicitor made “very many and intricate criticisms” of the tribunal, but she found no substance in any of them.
In his application for restoration, Mr Mariaddan argued that the misconduct for which he was struck off “occurred during a period of an acute health crisis”, following a heart attack and stroke in 2015.
He had “undertaken counselling, continued to maintain his professional development, and expressed remorse”. If restored to the roll, he “proposed to return to practice in a non-managerial role”.
Opposing the application, the SRA argued that there was no evidence, beyond the solicitor’s own assertion, “that the consequences of his 2015 illnesses continued to affect him some four years later, such that they impacted his ability to judge whether the assertions he made to the Legal Aid Agency’s solicitors, and his insurance brokers, were true or untrue”.
Mr Mariaddan’s application for restoration was “premature”, having been made only three years after he was struck off.
The SDT agreed, saying that “save in the most exceptional circumstances”, applications made within six years of strike-off were unlikely to succeed.
“It was concerning that the applicant, having previously been found to have made dishonest statements, continued to demonstrate a propensity to make factual assertions for which there was no proper basis. This propensity certainly did not support the applicant’s contention of insight and rehabilitation.”
Mr Mariaddan’s evidence “lacked candour and care”, it went on; he made assertions not borne out by the documents he relied upon, such as that he was suffering from cognitive impairment at the time the misconduct occurred.
The tribunal refused Mr Mariaddan’s application and ordered him to pay costs of just over £4,000.
Low hanging fruit for public demonstration when the SDT and SRA let’s the more serious offenses get off scot free.