Lawyer admitted to omitting details of a regulatory probe during his Bar application
A solicitor has been reprimanded by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after admitting that he failed to disclose an ongoing regulatory investigation during his application to be called to the Bar.
The tribunal heard that Anjum Shahzad, a solicitor admitted to the Roll in August 2001, did not reveal that he was the subject of an investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) when completing documentation for Lincoln’s Inn in January 2022.
According to the judgment, the SRA alleged that Mr Shahzad failed to disclose the existence of an SRA investigation in a Call Declaration Form submitted to Lincoln’s Inn on or around 10 January 2022. The regulator also alleged that, between approximately 7 June 2022 and 16 February 2023, he failed to inform the Inn’s Conduct Committee that he remained subject to the investigation.
The investigation related to a potential breach of anti-money laundering (AML) obligations. The tribunal noted that Mr Shahzad was responsible for ensuring compliance with AML requirements at Shahzads Law Ltd. The judgment states that the matter was referred for formal investigation by the SRA in November 2020.
Mr Shahzad admitted the allegations brought against him.
The case was dealt with on the papers and no appearances were made at the hearing, which took place on 19 May 2026. The tribunal considered an agreed outcome proposed by both parties.
In assessing the appropriate sanction, the tribunal reviewed its Guidance Note on Sanctions and examined the level of culpability, potential harm and any aggravating or mitigating factors.
The tribunal found that the misconduct was not deliberate and resulted from carelessness. It also took into account that Mr Shahzad had sought to correct the position by volunteering the relevant information. The tribunal described his level of culpability as low and found that there was no identifiable harm to any individual, with the risk of such harm considered negligible.
The judgment further noted that Mr Shahzad had demonstrated genuine insight into his misconduct and that the likelihood of similar misconduct occurring in the future was low.
Having considered all the circumstances, the tribunal concluded that a reprimand was the appropriate outcome and approved the agreed proposal submitted by the parties.
In addition to the reprimand, the tribunal ordered Mr Shahzad to pay a contribution towards costs. The amount was fixed at £5,000 after taking account of his financial means.
The order was formally issued on 11 June 2026, bringing the disciplinary proceedings to a close.