Solicitor admitted breaching SRA Principle 2 following conviction for harassment without violence
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has rebuked a Bradford solicitor following his conviction for harassment without violence linked to an incident that took place in December 2022.
An agreed outcome published on 20 May 2026 confirmed that Amir Dar, of Goldmark Legal Services Ltd, accepted a written rebuke in resolution of the regulator’s investigation into his conduct. He also agreed to publication of the outcome and to pay £300 towards the SRA’s investigation costs.
According to the decision, Dar submitted a self-report to the SRA in November 2023 after being charged with criminal offences, with a trial initially listed for October 2025.
The regulator said Dar later updated the SRA in September 2025 to confirm that he had pleaded guilty to a less serious offence under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
On 23 July 2025, Dar was convicted of harassment without violence relating to an incident that occurred in December 2022. Mr Dar received a fine equivalent to one week’s wages, amounting to £775, and was made subject to a two-year restraining order. He was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge and costs.
As part of the agreed outcome, Dar admitted that by virtue of his conduct and conviction he had failed to act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons, in breach of Principle 2 of the SRA Principles.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the SRA said it had taken into account a number of mitigating factors. These included Dar’s prompt self-report to the regulator, his full cooperation with the investigation, the fact the matter was an isolated incident, and that he had no previous convictions or adverse regulatory history.
The regulator also noted that, in sentencing remarks, the judge accepted Dar had shown genuine remorse. However, the SRA concluded that a written rebuke remained appropriate because Dar was directly responsible for the conduct and because the incident caused distress to a third party.
In its published decision, the regulator stated: “The nature of the conviction requires a sanction to be applied in order to uphold public trust and confidence in the delivery of legal services.”
The SRA also confirmed that if Dar were to deny the admissions made within the agreement or act inconsistently with them, the matter could be reconsidered and potentially referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.