SRA imposes conditions on solicitor Michelle Niaz after prosecution for unauthorised practice
Solicitor Michelle Niaz has been referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) over allegations of unauthorised practice and client account failings spanning several years. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has also imposed strict conditions on her practising certificate in the public interest.
The Clitheroe-based solicitor, practising at Lewis Mitchell Solicitors incorporating Ruth Moores & Co, is accused of operating as a sole practitioner without authorisation between 18 January 2020 and 1 September 2023. The SRA alleges that during this period, she held client monies and failed to maintain proper accounting records in breach of regulatory obligations.
According to the SRA’s published decision on 29 January 2025, the case has been referred to the SDT, which will independently determine whether the allegations are proven. The Tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of multiple charges relating to practice management and financial controls.
Embed from Getty Images
The allegations include that Ms Niaz:
- Practised as a sole practitioner without SRA authorisation.
- Held client monies while not working within an authorised firm.
- Failed to maintain accurate and up-to-date accounting records between June 2016 and September 2023, including neglecting to conduct five-weekly reconciliations and failing to produce mandatory accountants’ reports.
The SRA emphasised that these allegations are unproven and remain subject to a hearing before the Tribunal. The SDT will review all evidence, including any submissions made by Ms Niaz in her defence, before reaching a final determination.
In a separate decision issued on 8 September 2025, the SRA confirmed that Ms Niaz’s 2024/2025 practising certificate has been renewed subject to strict conditions. These include:
- She must not act as a manager or owner of any authorised body.
- She may only work as an employee, and any employment must be pre-approved by the SRA.
- She cannot act as a compliance officer for legal practice (COLP) or for finance and administration (COFA).
The regulator said these restrictions are necessary and proportionate to protect the public and maintain confidence in the profession. The conditions were imposed under regulation 7 of the SRA Authorisation of Individuals Regulations and are consistent with the Legal Services Act 2007, which governs professional conduct and regulatory oversight.
The latest restrictions follow an earlier interim control order imposed on 22 April 2024, during which the SRA placed similar conditions on Ms Niaz’s certificate pending the outcome of ongoing disciplinary proceedings. That decision was made under rule 3.2 of the SRA Regulatory and Disciplinary Procedure Rules, which allows interim conditions where necessary for public protection.
The SRA stated at the time:
“We are satisfied that these conditions are necessary in the public interest or for the protection of the public.”
The ongoing case against Ms Niaz highlights the SRA’s continued focus on anti-money laundering compliance and accounting transparency in small practices. Solicitors who practise outside authorised structures or mishandle client money face serious consequences, including potential suspension or strike-off if allegations are upheld by the SDT.
The firm, Lewis Mitchell Solicitors incorporating Ruth Moores & Co, is based at Primrose Dairy, Railway View Road, Clitheroe (Firm ID: 630158). The SRA has confirmed that the regulatory actions relate to Ms Niaz’s personal conduct and not to the wider firm’s operations.
The SDT hearing date has not yet been publicly announced. Until then, the conditions on Ms Niaz’s practising certificate remain in force, effectively preventing her from managing a law firm or handling compliance responsibilities.
If the Tribunal finds the allegations proven, potential sanctions could range from a financial penalty to suspension or permanent removal from the Roll of Solicitors.
For now, the case remains ongoing, with the SRA reiterating that all allegations are unproven pending the Tribunal’s judgment.