Oliver Saxon was suspended for one month for employing an assistant under the SRA ban without permission
A law firm owner has been suspended for a month after hiring a legal assistant whose employment was restricted under a Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) order.
Oliver James Saxon, admitted as a solicitor in May 2012, was sanctioned for allowing Tyto Law Limited — where he served as owner, director, manager and compliance officer — to employ Ben Moore despite a section 43 restriction on Moore’s work. The order barred any recognised body from employing or remunerating Moore without the SRA’s permission.
The SRA alleged that Saxon failed to ensure his firm complied with the order, provided inaccurate information on the application seeking permission to employ Moore, and allowed Moore to continue working in knowing contravention of the restriction. It also claimed Saxon did not meet conditions imposed when the regulator approved Moore’s employment.
Embed from Getty ImagesSaxon admitted all the allegations.
According to the agreed outcome, Moore initially worked at Tyto Law in Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire, via an agency, without the SRA’s authorisation. Saxon applied for permission after discovering the section 43 order — but Moore continued to work as a temporary locum will writer while the application was pending and before approval was granted.
The tribunal noted that, although Saxon had applied for the necessary permission once aware of the order, the application form was not completed accurately.
In mitigation, which the SRA did not endorse, Saxon said he was unaware of the restriction when Moore was first engaged in June 2021. He claimed to have learned of it the following month, at which point he submitted the application. Saxon stressed that he did not deliberately intend to mislead the regulator and that no client suffered any loss or negative impact as a result.
However, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) concluded that Saxon’s actions breached his regulatory duties. It approved the agreed sanction of a one‑month suspension, finding it “satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Saxon’s admissions were properly made”.
The SDT ordered that the suspension begin on 1 August 2025, allowing Saxon time to arrange cover for his absence to safeguard his existing clients. He was also ordered to pay £4,800 in costs.
Section 43 orders, imposed under the Solicitors Act 1974, restrict non‑solicitors from working in certain roles within SRA‑regulated firms without express permission. Such orders are typically made when the regulator considers that an individual’s conduct renders them unsuitable for employment in the profession without oversight.
The SRA has repeatedly warned that employing someone subject to a section 43 order without permission is a serious breach, exposing both the individual and the employing solicitor to disciplinary action. In this case, the regulator treated Saxon’s failure to comply as particularly concerning because it continued after he had become aware of the restriction.
The decision serves as a reminder that law firm leaders — especially those holding compliance roles — are expected to have robust systems to check the regulatory status of all staff and locums before and during their engagement. Even unintentional breaches can result in significant sanctions, as the SDT made clear in this ruling.
