Tribunal finds solicitor repeatedly certified documents without seeing originals, breaching core duties
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has ordered the striking off of a solicitor after finding multiple allegations of professional misconduct proved, including certifying documents as true copies without having seen the original documents and breaching a regulatory settlement agreement.
In a judgment following a hearing on 20 and 21 November 2025, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal upheld all allegations brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The Tribunal concluded that the misconduct was deliberate, repeated, and fundamentally undermined public trust in the solicitors’ profession.
The case concerned conduct while the Respondent was practising as a solicitor through Document Certifier Ltd, a non-SRA regulated firm operating via an online platform. The Tribunal found that between June 2021 and August 2022 the Respondent certified documents as true copies of originals he claimed to have seen, when in fact he relied solely on uploaded or scanned copies provided through the website.
In August 2022, the Respondent entered into a regulatory settlement agreement with the SRA, admitting that he had certified documents without seeing originals and agreeing not to act inconsistently with those admissions. Despite this, the Tribunal found that he continued to advertise and provide the same certification service after the agreement, again certifying documents without sight of original documents.
The Tribunal rejected the Respondent’s argument that an uploaded electronic document constituted the original document. It found that, as a matter of logic and common sense, an uploaded scan could only ever be a copy or a later-generation version of an original. While physical possession of an original was not required, the Tribunal held that sight of the original document remained essential for valid certification.
The Tribunal also rejected reliance on guidance cited by the Respondent, including Law Society materials and correspondence, finding that none supported his interpretation of certification requirements. It found that the certification wording used did not reflect the manner in which the documents were certified and was therefore misleading.
In assessing breaches of the SRA Principles and Code of Conduct, the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent had failed to uphold public trust and confidence, failed to act with integrity, misled clients, and failed to cooperate properly with his regulator. The misconduct continued over a prolonged period and persisted after regulatory intervention.
When considering a sanction, the Tribunal found no mitigating factors. It determined that the misconduct was aggravated by its deliberate and repeated nature, the breach of the regulatory settlement agreement, and the foreseeable harm caused to clients who relied on invalid certified documents. The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent posed an ongoing risk to the public and to the reputation of the profession.
The Tribunal rejected all lesser sanctions and determined that strike-off was the only appropriate and proportionate outcome. It also ordered the Respondent to pay costs in the sum of £35,640.