SRA cited intoxication, a vehicle collision and a nearly three-year reporting delay
A former Gunnercooke LLP solicitor has been rebuked by the Solicitors Regulation Authority after being convicted of drink-driving at more than 3.5 times the legal alcohol limit and failing to report the matter to the regulator for almost three years.
In an agreed outcome published on 21 May 2026, Tejinder Mahil, a solicitor and former employee of the firm, accepted a written rebuke and agreed to pay £300 towards the costs of the SRA’s investigation.
The case arose from an incident on 18 March 2022, when Mr Mahil was arrested after the vehicle he was driving collided with a parked unattended car. A blood sample taken at the police station returned a reading of 281 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, significantly above the statutory limit.
Mr Mahil was subsequently charged and pleaded guilty at Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court on 13 September 2022.
He was disqualified from driving for 36 months, reduced by 36 weeks upon completion of an approved rehabilitation course, and ordered to pay a £200 fine, carry out 200 hours of unpaid work, and pay a £95 victim surcharge together with £105 in prosecution costs.
The SRA said the conviction was not reported until 29 July 2025, nearly three years after the court proceedings concluded, despite clear obligations requiring prompt notification of criminal convictions.
When asked to account for the delay, Mr Mahil said he had mistakenly believed drink-driving offences did not require reporting unless they involved dishonesty or custodial sentences. He accepted this was a misunderstanding, acknowledging that as an experienced solicitor he should have been aware of his regulatory duties.
The regulator found breaches of Principle 2 of the SRA Principles, requiring solicitors to uphold public trust and confidence in the profession, and paragraph 7.6(a) of the Code of Conduct, which imposes a duty to report criminal convictions promptly.
In deciding that a rebuke was appropriate, the SRA pointed to the seriousness of the offence, including the high level of intoxication and the collision that resulted in damage to a third-party vehicle. It also highlighted that the delayed notification deprived the regulator of timely oversight of the conduct.
However, the SRA accepted mitigation including that Mr Mahil had no previous regulatory history, had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, complied with the court sentence, and demonstrated remorse and insight. He also cooperated fully with the regulatory investigation and had maintained sobriety.
A written rebuke was therefore considered a proportionate regulatory response in all the circumstances.
Mr Mahil also agreed to publication of the outcome and to pay £300 towards the costs of the investigation