Polaris Law Solicitors closed after SRA intervention citing suspected dishonesty by manager
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has intervened into the practice of Polaris Law Solicitors Ltd, ordering the closure of the High Wycombe-based firm following concerns about suspected dishonesty connected to its management. The decision, made on 8 October 2025 and published the following day, effectively shuts down the firm’s operations and transfers responsibility for its files, client money, and assets to a court-appointed agent.
The SRA said it took the decision under its statutory powers after forming a reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Mr Zulfiqar Rahman, the owner and manager of the firm, in connection with its business activities. The regulator cited paragraph 32(1)(d) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985, which permits intervention when there is reason to suspect dishonesty by a solicitor, manager or employee.
Polaris Law Solicitors Ltd, based at 83 Easton Street, High Wycombe (HP11 1LT), was a recognised body regulated under firm ID 8005345. The SRA confirmed that the intervention was also made on the basis that both Mr Rahman and the firm had failed to comply with applicable professional rules, as outlined in paragraph 32(1)(a) of the same Act and section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985.
As a result of the intervention, the firm must cease trading immediately. All client matters, documents, and funds have been placed under the control of the SRA’s appointed intervention agent, Chris Evans of Lester Aldridge LLP, based at Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth. The agent’s role is to secure client files, safeguard any client money held by the firm, and make arrangements for ongoing cases to be transferred to alternative solicitors chosen by clients.
Embed from Getty Images
An SRA spokesperson said the decision to intervene is one of the most serious regulatory actions available to the authority and is taken only when it is necessary to protect clients and the wider public interest. “An intervention does not necessarily mean there has been a finding of misconduct, but it ensures that client interests are immediately protected while investigations continue,” the regulator said.
The closure of Polaris Law means that the firm can no longer operate or hold itself out as providing legal services. All practising rights of the firm’s managers and employees are automatically suspended in relation to the firm’s activities. Clients with live cases are advised to contact the SRA-appointed agent to recover files or to arrange for another solicitor to take over their matters.
Under the intervention process, the SRA assumes possession of all client money and documents held by the firm. The appointed agent is required to contact clients directly to confirm next steps and to secure the safe return of deeds, papers, or funds. Any outstanding balances in client accounts are frozen until they can be properly distributed to their rightful owners.
The reasons behind the regulator’s suspicion of dishonesty have not been publicly disclosed, and no findings have yet been made. However, the SRA’s notice indicates that the firm failed to meet professional obligations under the rules that govern solicitors’ conduct and financial management. Investigations into the firm and Mr Rahman’s actions are expected to continue following the closure.
Interventions of this kind are typically reserved for cases involving serious regulatory breaches, risks to client money, or evidence suggesting financial misconduct. Once an intervention has taken place, the SRA may decide to pursue disciplinary proceedings, including potential referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, depending on the outcome of further inquiries.
Polaris Law Solicitors Ltd had operated as a recognised body offering general legal services in Buckinghamshire. There has been no public response from Mr Rahman or representatives of the firm since the intervention was announced. The SRA’s order confirms that the decision was made in the public interest and that the regulator considered the measure both reasonable and proportionate under its statutory duties.