A solicitor has been struck off after admitting dishonesty over false cancer claims to his firm
A solicitor has been struck off the roll after a disciplinary tribunal found he had repeatedly lied to his employer about having cancer and had submitted a falsified medical report to support the deception.
In a judgment issued following a hearing on 17 December 2025, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that Soham Nitin Panchamiya be struck off with immediate effect. The decision was published in early January 2026.
The proceedings were brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which alleged that Mr Panchamiya had acted dishonestly while practising as a solicitor at Reed Smith.
The Tribunal heard that between 22 September and 13 November 2023, Mr Panchamiya falsely claimed to colleagues and managers that he had been diagnosed with cancer and was undergoing treatment. He provided detailed accounts of surgery, chemotherapy and ongoing medical monitoring, all of which were untrue.
On or around 19 October 2023, Mr Panchamiya escalated the deception by submitting a purported medical report to his firm. The document appeared to be on hospital letterhead and stated that he had suffered from repeated instances of early-stage cancer and was fit for work. Concerns were raised internally about inconsistencies in the document, including formatting issues and errors relating to the doctor’s name and licence details.
The firm subsequently contacted the named doctor directly. The Tribunal found that the doctor confirmed he had not diagnosed Mr Panchamiya with cancer, had not prepared or signed the report, and that the document was a forgery.
Mr Panchamiya admitted all allegations brought against him, including that his conduct was dishonest and lacked integrity. He argued, however, that exceptional circumstances applied due to significant personal and mental health difficulties, and that a sanction short of strike-off would be proportionate.
After reviewing medical evidence and detailed submissions from both parties, the Tribunal rejected that argument. It concluded that the dishonesty was deliberate, repeated and sustained over a period of weeks, and culminated in the falsification of medical evidence.
The Tribunal found that the misconduct was neither isolated nor minor and that it seriously undermined public trust in the profession. While it accepted that Mr Panchamiya was experiencing personal difficulties at the time, it determined these did not amount to exceptional circumstances capable of justifying a lesser sanction.
Accordingly, the Tribunal ruled that the only appropriate and proportionate outcome was to strike Mr Panchamiya off the roll of solicitors. He was also ordered to pay costs in the sum of £22,000.