Raghwinder Singh Siddhu, a serving Labour councillor, faces suspension as SRA cites dishonesty and regulatory breaches
A Labour councillor and former mayor of Hounslow is under scrutiny after the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) shut down the law firm he jointly managed, citing suspected dishonesty and breaches of professional rules.
SZ Solicitors Limited, an immigration-focused firm based in Hounslow, west London, was forcibly closed last week by the regulator, which also suspended the practising certificates of its two managers — Raghwinder Singh Siddhu and Mohammad Saeed Zafar.
Siddhu currently serves as Labour councillor for Bedfont in the London Borough of Hounslow and held the ceremonial position of mayor in 2022. Both he and Zafar are now accused of serious misconduct connected to the firm’s operation.
In official intervention notices, the SRA outlined a litany of alleged violations. It stated that Siddhu, Zafar, and SZ Solicitors had all failed to adhere to the Code of Conduct for solicitors and firms, as well as the SRA Accounts Rules. Crucially, the regulator revealed there is “reason to suspect dishonesty” on the part of both solicitors, in connection with the firm’s business affairs.
The intervention was carried out under paragraph 32(1)(d) of Schedule 2 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 — a measure typically reserved for severe regulatory breaches involving client risk or financial impropriety.
SZ Solicitors has been a staple of the Hounslow legal scene since its founding in 2008. According to its now-defunct public profile on Review Solicitors, the firm began as a sole practitioner and later expanded through a merger with QSS Solicitors.
Embed from Getty ImagesZafar, who was approached by the Law Gazette for comment following the SRA’s announcement, defended the firm and condemned the regulator’s actions as disproportionate. “In my view, the SRA’s exercise of power to intervene is unjustified. It is misuse of power,” he said. “Intervention is uncalled for.”
He added that the firm had operated as a small high street practice without any known client complaints or financial losses. Zafar argued that the regulator had intervened not because of harm to clients, but due to a separate dispute with HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), which he claimed the SRA used as justification.
“There was no client complaint, no loss to clients’ money, only a dispute with HM Revenue & Customs gave SRA the opportunity to step in,” he insisted.
Despite Zafar’s protestations, the intervention indicates a significant escalation in regulatory concern. According to SRA procedures, interventions of this nature result in the immediate closure of a firm’s operations and the appointment of an intervention agent to manage client files and recover money owed.
The development raises questions for Labour and the Hounslow local authority about oversight and transparency, especially given Siddhu’s dual role as councillor and legal practitioner.
As of now, neither Siddhu nor the Labour Party has issued a public response. The SRA’s investigation into the matter remains active.
