Tribunal says restoration would undermine public confidence after dishonesty findings
A struck-off solicitor has failed in his attempt to return to the profession after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ruled that restoring him to the Roll would undermine public confidence in solicitors. Ehsan Kabir, who was struck off in 2019 after findings of dishonesty, applied for restoration to the Roll of Solicitors under section 47(2)(f) of the Solicitors Act 1974. The tribunal refused the application following a two-day hearing in April 2026.
The original disciplinary proceedings concerned allegations arising from Kabir’s conduct during the operation of No. 1 Solicitors Limited. Of nine allegations pursued by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), eight were dismissed. However, the tribunal found that Kabir had knowingly provided misleading information to the regulator regarding the termination of a co-director’s position and the status of a shareholder agreement between 2015 and 2017.
The tribunal concluded in 2019 that the conduct was dishonest and ordered that Kabir be struck off the Roll. He was also ordered to pay more than £35,000 in costs, which he has since paid in full.
During the restoration application, Kabir accepted the original findings and did not seek to challenge the earlier decision. However, he argued that he had been suffering from an undiagnosed mental illness at the time of the misconduct and disciplinary proceedings.
The tribunal heard evidence from consultant psychiatrist Dr Anthony John Wilkins, who assessed Kabir on three occasions between 2022 and 2026. Dr Wilkins told the tribunal that Kabir had suffered severe depression when first assessed in 2022, but had since made a substantial recovery and was fit to practise from a psychiatric perspective.
However, the tribunal noted there was no contemporaneous medical evidence showing Kabir suffered from depression during the period of misconduct between 2015 and 2017. The panel ruled that the medical evidence could not undermine or dilute the dishonesty findings made in 2019.
Kabir also relied on evidence of rehabilitation, including legal training courses, voluntary work with a children’s charity, and work at an unregulated family law business following his strike-off. The tribunal accepted that he had not committed further misconduct and acknowledged positive testimonials submitted on his behalf.
Despite this, the tribunal found that the circumstances did not meet the exceptionally high threshold required for restoration in cases involving dishonesty. The judgment stated that a fair-minded and informed member of the public would likely view restoration as damaging to confidence in the solicitors’ profession. Kabir was also ordered to pay the SRA’s costs of £8,434.