Raj Mariaddan’s application to return to the roll was rejected by the tribunal as “premature” in 2025
A former solicitor struck off less than four years ago has failed in his attempt to return to the profession after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found he had not shown sufficient remorse or rehabilitation.
Raj Mariaddan, who was removed from the roll in February 2022, applied for restoration but was told his bid was “premature” and that his evidence “lacked candour and care.” The tribunal ruled that his application did not demonstrate a full understanding of the ethical standards required of solicitors.
Mariaddan, admitted as a solicitor in 1995, previously practised as a sole practitioner at John Street Solicitors in north-west London. In 2019, he entered into a partnership under the same name. His strike-off followed findings that he had acted dishonestly towards another law firm about his personal circumstances and had been dishonest on a professional indemnity insurance renewal form.
Appearing before the tribunal, Mariaddan said he accepted the decision to strike him off but described the sanction as “draconian” and maintained that he “should never have been investigated, let alone prosecuted.” The SDT said this stance undermined his claims of acceptance.
Embed from Getty Images
In its judgment, the tribunal wrote: “His assertion of acceptance was undermined by his refusal to acknowledge the correctness of the findings and sanction, and his failure to demonstrate a clear understanding of the ethical standards expected of solicitors.”
Mariaddan argued that he had shown rehabilitation through counselling, expressed remorse, and continued to engage with legal developments. He said he had acted as a litigant in person in civil proceedings and offered pro bono assistance to others. He also referred to health challenges, including a heart attack and stroke in 2015, which he claimed affected his judgment at the time of the misconduct.
He told the tribunal that he did not intend to return to a managerial position but wished to work under supervision at an alternative business structure that had expressed interest in employing him if reinstated.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) opposed his application, arguing that his health issues occurred several years before the misconduct and that his attempt to rejoin the roll was premature. The SRA submitted that Mariaddan had not provided adequate evidence of rehabilitation, continued to minimise his responsibility, and attempted to shift blame onto others, including his former business partner.
The tribunal agreed with the regulator’s assessment. It said the testimonials provided in support of Mariaddan’s application were of limited value, noting that one was written three years before his strike-off and could not credibly speak to his current conduct or insight.
The SDT stated: “The applicant’s evidence lacked candour and care. The tribunal was not satisfied that he had demonstrated the necessary insight or understanding to justify restoration at this stage.”
The panel concluded that Mariaddan’s application was premature and that allowing him to return to practice would not serve the public interest or maintain confidence in the integrity of the profession.
Mariaddan was ordered to pay £4,150 in costs to the SRA.
The decision highlights the strict threshold applied by the SDT when considering restoration applications. Former solicitors seeking reinstatement must demonstrate genuine insight into their past misconduct, sustained rehabilitation, and an understanding of professional ethics.
Mariaddan’s case underscores the tribunal’s consistent position that merely expressing remorse or citing personal circumstances is insufficient to justify reinstatement without clear evidence of ethical reform and professional re-engagement.
The ruling also reflects growing emphasis by the SRA and the SDT on maintaining public confidence in the legal profession by ensuring that those previously struck off are only readmitted after demonstrating full rehabilitation.
Mariaddan remains off the roll and ineligible to practise as a solicitor in England and Wales.