§ discipline
‹ Back

Graeme Henry Taylor; Russell Harvey Shapiro

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number12589/2024
Date13/12/2024
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Code of Conduct 2007, Code of Conduct 2011, Code of Conduct for Solicitors, REL's & RFL's 2019, Dishonesty, Lack of Integrity, SRA Principles 2011, SRA Principles 2019

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 70,000
Dishonesty foundYes

Graeme Taylor (head of probate) and Russell Shapiro (head of conveyancing), partners at Gelbergs, were found to have knowingly caused or allowed documents containing false and misleading information to be submitted to HM Land Registry. Properties from the estate of the late Mohammed Taj were transferred into fictitious/alias names (e.g. Maurice Slater, Nicola Webb, Lisa Sinks, Frank Noble, Martin Lagoda) for Mr Ali and Mrs Ali, concealing true ownership from HMLR and the local authority. The First Respondent admitted the conduct and that HMLR was deliberately misled but denied dishonesty; he did not attend. The Second Respondent ultimately denied involvement, claiming the First Respondent forged his references, but the Tribunal relied on his August 2023 letter admitting knowledge and found he acquiesced. The Tribunal found all allegations proved against both, including dishonesty, lack of integrity and breach of public trust. Culpability and harm assessed as very high. No exceptional circumstances under Sharma/James. Both struck off the Roll. Costs of £70,000 split £60,000 (First Respondent) and £10,000 (Second Respondent).

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Dishonesty found
  • Conduct deliberate and calculated to circumvent rules designed to protect the public
  • Repeated misconduct over a lengthy period (2010-2020)
  • Conduct involved submission of false and misleading documents to HM Land Registry
  • No genuine insight
  • Second Respondent resiled from earlier admissions

Mitigating factors:

  • No previous disciplinary findings against either Respondent
  • First Respondent made some admissions and indicated he expected removal from the Roll

Codes & rules applied

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/12589/