2025 SDT ruling removes practice conditions on Rajob Ali; £1,495 costs ordered to SRA
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has removed all remaining practice conditions on solicitor Rajob Ali, ending a long-running set of restrictions imposed after earlier misconduct findings. The panel reached its decision following a hearing on 1 August 2025, with the written order dated 5 September 2025. It also directed Mr Ali to pay £1,495 towards the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s costs of responding to his application.
Mr Ali appeared unrepresented. Andrew Bullock, a barrister employed by the SRA, appeared for the regulator. The Tribunal considered the matter as an application under Rule 18 of the SDPR 2019 to remove conditions previously attached to Mr Ali’s return to practice.
The background spans more than a decade. In hearings on 3–4 June 2014 and 24 September 2014, the Tribunal found a series of breaches proved. These included failures to disclose material information to lender and purchaser clients; acting where conflicts existed or risked arising; and not obtaining written consent in common-interest situations. The Tribunal also found multiple contraventions of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998 and 2011, including permitting one client’s funds to be used for another, allowing the client account to be used as a banking facility, and not keeping accounting records properly written up. It further found prohibited services had been provided through a separate business, that clients were not told of commissions or financial benefits, undertakings were not complied with promptly, and confidential client papers were disposed of in a public waste bin.
Embed from Getty Images
Following an SRA appeal to the High Court against the original findings and sanction, the case returned to the Tribunal for re-determination. The Tribunal then imposed a fixed-term suspension of three years from 29 September 2015. On his return to practice, Mr Ali faced conditions. He could not practise as a sole practitioner, partner, manager, owner, COLP or COFA, and he could not hold client money or act as a signatory on client or office accounts.
Mr Ali’s suspension ended on 29 September 2018. The SRA granted his practising certificate for 2018/19 with the above conditions. The 2019/20 certificate added a further restriction preventing him from practising on his own account under regulation 10.2(a) or (b) of the SRA Authorisation of Individuals Regulations. The same suite of conditions remained in place for 2020/21, 2021/22, 2022/23 and 2023/24.
On 14 March 2025, Mr Ali applied to have the conditions removed. He filed a witness statement with exhibits. He accepted the seriousness of his earlier misconduct—much of it linked to SDLT avoidance schemes—but argued that time, remediation and his subsequent conduct made continued restrictions unnecessary for the protection of the public or the integrity of the profession. He described compliance-focused work undertaken since 2013, provided references and testimonials, and confirmed he did not intend to practise on his own account.
For the SRA, Mr Bullock opposed full removal. He relied on the seriousness of the original misconduct and submissions that rehabilitation evidence must be compelling. He argued the concerns centred on ethical judgment and insight rather than technical competence, and he noted the absence of supervised employment demonstrating ethical progress. If relief were granted in part, he submitted that restrictions on acting as COLP/COFA should remain.
The Tribunal reviewed the parties’ evidence and submissions. It recorded that two previous Tribunals and the High Court had determined a sanction short of strike-off, indicating remediation was realistic. The Tribunal asked whether conditions were still necessary for public protection and confidence. It concluded they were not. It noted the historic misconduct related to one practice area, the suspension had been lengthy, and conditions had applied for years.
The Tribunal accepted Mr Ali’s candid acknowledgment of past failings. It found that his documentary and oral evidence demonstrated insight, reformation and steps to prevent recurrence. It considered the continuing risk to the public to be minimal and held that removing all conditions would not undermine confidence in the profession or its regulatory framework.
On costs, the Tribunal accepted the SRA was a necessary party. It awarded £1,495—a figure adjusted from the regulator’s schedule to reflect the outcome.