Mohammed Sarfraz was given a suspended suspension after the tribunal found antisemitic, offensive posts
A solicitor who used antisemitic slurs and offensive language on social media has avoided being struck off, despite the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) finding his posts were calculated to cause “maximum offence”.
Mohammed Sarfraz, a director at Bradford-based Cartwright Solicitors, received a six-month suspended suspension lasting a year. The sanction requires him to complete 10 hours of training in equality, diversity and inclusion, along with four hours specifically on antisemitism.
The tribunal stressed it was not punishing political beliefs but rather misconduct incompatible with the professional standards expected of solicitors. It said: “This was not a case about stifling legitimate political debate, but about ensuring that a solicitor who has undertaken professional obligations in exchange for privileges and public trust conducts himself with judgment and dignity, even in political discourse.”
Between November 2019 and January 2022, Sarfraz posted 15 messages on Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) which were deemed antisemitic or offensive. They included conspiracy theories about Jewish influence, religious defamation, and abusive language directed at prominent figures.
Embed from Getty ImagesThe tribunal noted a “systematic pattern” of antisemitic tropes, such as accusing British Jews of disloyalty, claiming Jews controlled the media or were responsible for 9/11, and alleging financial influence over politics. Among his most offensive remarks was a post aimed at former Conservative cabinet minister Sajid Javid, reading: “How many shekels was it you bald c###” – a statement the SDT said invoked antisemitic stereotypes of corruption.
Other targets included Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, TV presenter Rachel Riley, and pro-Israel politicians. Several posts were littered with crude language such as “go f*** yourself”. The SDT said the tone could not be explained away as irony or accident.
Sarfraz apologised unreservedly, acknowledging even his more ambiguous posts could be read as antisemitic when considered alongside the others. He told the tribunal his words were fuelled by anger at perceived political injustices, particularly around Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party. He insisted his anti-Zionist views were rooted in opposition to the Israeli government, not hostility to Jewish people.
The tribunal highlighted the contrast between Sarfraz’s “articulate, measured” professional demeanour and the “deliberately offensive” nature of his online comments. It concluded: “His deliberate use of emotive and antisemitic language in a public setting appeared designed not to further legitimate debate, but specifically to cause maximum offence.”
While finding clear breaches of Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) principles on integrity, trust, and equality, the SDT decided a strike-off would be disproportionate. It considered his previously unblemished career, genuine apologies, and steps toward self-reflection, including discussions with Jewish parents at his child’s school and engagement with academic literature on antisemitism.
The panel ruled that although Sarfraz had shown some insight, “more work” was needed. It considered but rejected an immediate suspension, instead opting for a suspended suspension as the “most appropriate” sanction.
Sarfraz was also ordered to pay £63,000 in costs.
The ruling underscores the balance regulators must strike between free political expression and maintaining public confidence in the profession. The SDT made clear that solicitors may criticise governments, institutions, or policies robustly – but cannot descend into offensive language or antisemitic abuse without breaching their professional obligations.