Tribunal removes several restrictions but retains key safeguards on practice
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has partially lifted long-standing practice restrictions imposed on Ashtar Abbas Dhami, following an application to remove conditions dating back to 2017.
In a judgment issued after a hearing on 17 March 2026, the tribunal concluded that some of the original restrictions were no longer necessary, although key safeguards would remain in place to protect the public and maintain confidence in the profession.
Mr Dhami had originally been subject to a six-month suspension and a series of restrictions after findings of misconduct, including breaches of the SRA Accounts Rules and failures relating to professional obligations. Although allegations of dishonesty were not proven, the tribunal at the time imposed conditions limiting his ability to practise independently and manage client funds.
In his application, Mr Dhami argued that nearly nine years had passed since the restrictions were imposed and that he had complied fully with all conditions. He submitted that he had practised in criminal legal aid work under supervision without incident and that the restrictions were limiting his ability to take on additional work and supervisory responsibilities.
The tribunal accepted that the extended period of compliant practice was a significant factor. It noted that there had been no further concerns regarding his work and that he had been subject to structured supervision during that time.
However, the Solicitors Regulation Authority opposed the application, arguing that the original misconduct was serious and that sufficient evidence of rehabilitation had not been provided. It maintained that the restrictions continued to serve an important protective function.
In its decision, the tribunal found that maintaining all of the original conditions would no longer be proportionate. It removed several restrictions, including those preventing Mr Dhami from holding client money, acting as a signatory on client accounts, and requiring prior approval for employment.
However, key limitations remain. Mr Dhami is still prohibited from practising as a sole practitioner or owner of a law firm and from acting as a compliance officer for legal practice or finance. The tribunal stated that these remaining restrictions were necessary given the nature of the original findings, particularly those relating to integrity.
The tribunal emphasised that its primary duty was the protection of the public, noting that while conditions should not operate as a punitive measure, safeguards must remain where there is a continuing risk.
Mr Dhami was also ordered to pay costs of £4,000, reduced from the amount initially sought by the regulator.