SRA disqualifies Husna Khan from all SRA-regulated roles and orders £600 costs
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has imposed a financial penalty on Daniel Jones, a solicitor and former partner and head of family law at Berryman’s Lace Mawer LLP, after finding that his conduct in a client’s divorce matter breached professional standards. Following a contested two-day hearing on 9–10 September 2025, the tribunal concluded that Mr Jones did not act dishonestly, lacked integrity or behave recklessly, but that he failed to uphold public trust and to act in his client’s best interests. It ordered a Level 1 fine of £1,500 and a contribution to costs of £15,000.
The case centred on whether Mr Jones misled his client, referred to as Person A, about the lodging of an application for Decree Nisi. The tribunal heard that Person A instructed the firm in early 2019 and, after initial progress, encountered substantial delays from mid-2019 onward. Person A said she was repeatedly told that the Decree Nisi application had been issued, re-filed, or was awaiting court action, only to discover it was not actually filed until November 2020. Her divorce was finalised far later than anticipated, with Decree Nisi granted in April 2022 and Decree Absolute in May 2022.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority alleged that between December 2019 and April 2021 Mr Jones misled Person A into believing he had lodged a Decree Nisi application in October or November 2019 and, in the alternative, that his conduct was reckless. It relied on internal emails including a 19 November 2019 message from a trainee stating there was no record of any application to the court, and a 25 February 2020 email from Mr Jones’s secretary saying the firm could not trace an application. The SRA said warnings were ignored while assurances to the client continued. Counsel for the applicant, Hanne Stevens of Capsticks LLP, argued that the pattern amounted to serious misconduct.
Embed from Getty Images
Mr Jones, represented by Jonathan Goodwin, denied dishonesty and recklessness. He told the tribunal that as department head he delegated routine administrative steps to junior staff, and that when he wrote “I” in client correspondence he meant he would arrange for the task to be carried out by his team. He said he believed throughout that the application had been lodged and attributed the delay to prevalent court backlogs and operational pressure during the pandemic. He accepted that his oversight fell short, but maintained that he never knowingly misled his client.
Assessing the evidence, the tribunal applied the tests for dishonesty (Ivey v Genting) and integrity (Wingate v SRA), and the recklessness principles in Brett v SRA. It found that Mr Jones genuinely believed the application had been lodged in late 2019 and that his use of “I” reflected firm practice rather than a claim he personally executed filings. It noted significant contextual factors, including the COVID-19 period, remote working, Mr Jones’s personal circumstances, and the rapid growth of the department. Allegations of dishonesty, lack of integrity and recklessness were not proved.
However, the tribunal determined that Mr Jones breached Principle 2 (upholding public trust and confidence) and Principle 7 (acting in each client’s best interests) of the SRA Principles 2019. As head of department, he ought to have known that the Decree Nisi application had not been lodged and should have conducted basic checks that would have clarified the true position. The failings were characterised as insufficient supervision and oversight rather than deliberate or reckless misconduct. The tribunal also observed that key junior witnesses were not called by the applicant; nevertheless, on the material available, it was satisfied that breaches of Principles 2 and 7 were established.
In sanction, the tribunal considered the seriousness, harm and mitigation. It recorded the anxiety and distress experienced by Person A over an extended period, repeated reassurances later shown to be inaccurate, and Mr Jones’s seniority and ultimate responsibility for the file. Mitigating factors included an otherwise unblemished record, absence of dishonesty or personal gain, insight, and changes to practice. Concluding that a reprimand would not sufficiently mark the seriousness, but that any higher tariff would be disproportionate, it imposed a Level 1 penalty of £1,500.
On costs, the SRA sought in excess of £39,000. Applying a broad-brush assessment and noting that the most serious allegations were not proved, the tribunal ordered Mr Jones to pay £15,000 towards the applicant’s costs.