SRA imposes renewed restrictions on solicitors’ practising certificates
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has imposed conditions on the practising certificate of Kwasi Boakye Yiadom for the 2025/2026 practice year, continuing restrictions previously applied in 2024/2025.
The most recent decision, dated 9 January 2026 and published on 11 February 2026, was made by the SRA as a control of practice outcome. It places formal limitations on Mr Boakye Yiadom’s ability to operate within authorised legal practice.
At the time of the matters giving rise to the outcome, Mr Boakye Yiadom was practising at Dolphine Solicitors, Unit 150, Camberwell Business Centre, 99–103 Lomond Grove, London, SE5 7HN (Firm ID: 470956).
Under the conditions attached to his 2025/2026 practising certificate, Mr Boakye Yiadom is not permitted to act as a manager or owner of an authorised body. He may not practise on his own account under regulation 10.2(a) or (b) of the SRA Authorisation of Individuals Regulations. In addition, he must immediately inform any actual or prospective employer of these conditions and the reasons for their imposition. The terms used in the conditions carry the meanings set out in the SRA Glossary.
The SRA stated that the conditions are necessary in the public interest. It confirmed that they are reasonable and proportionate, having regard to the purposes outlined in regulation 7 of the SRA Authorisation of Individuals Regulations. The regulator also referenced the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.
These restrictions follow an earlier SRA decision dated 31 March 2025, published on 1 May 2025, which imposed identical conditions on Mr Boakye Yiadom’s 2024/2025 practising certificate.
At that time, the firm details recorded included both Dolphine Solicitors (Firm ID: 470956) and SLA Solicitors (Firm ID: 626779), operating from Unit 150, Camberwell Business Centre, 99–103 Lomond Grove, London SE5 7HN.
The 2024/2025 conditions mirrored those now in force. Mr Boakye Yiadom was prohibited from acting as a manager or owner of an authorised body and from practising on his own account. He was also required to inform any actual or prospective employer of the conditions and the reasons behind them.
The SRA confirmed in both decisions that the measures were necessary in the public interest and proportionate in light of the relevant regulatory framework. The published outcomes do not detail further factual findings beyond the imposition of these practice controls.