§ discipline
‹ Back

Rajpal Panesar

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number12552/2024
Date11/10/2024
OutcomeSuspend - Fixed Period

Allegation / charges

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

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

SanctionSuspension
Suspension9 months
CostsGBP 14,000
Dishonesty foundYes

Rajpal Panesar, a managing partner at Taylor Rose TTKW, instructed Person A (a newly qualified solicitor under his supervision) to send a misleading email to Client A containing a false explanation that a report had been posted and returned, to cover up his earlier inaccurate statements that the report had already been sent. Person A refused and the misleading email was never sent. The Tribunal found Allegation 1.1 proved in its entirety, including an express finding of dishonesty under Principle 4, as well as breaches of Principles 2 and 5 and Paragraph 1.4 of the Code. Although dishonesty normally leads to striking off, the Tribunal found exceptional circumstances (isolated, brief, unpremeditated conduct, email never sent, no harm to transaction, full admissions and remorse) and imposed a 9-month suspension plus costs of £14,000 (reduced from £17,755 sought).

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Misconduct had a devastating impact on Person A, a newly qualified junior colleague
  • Abuse of senior/leadership position over a junior colleague
  • Amended email required care and consideration and was followed up by further email and phone call
  • Motivated by desire to avoid criticism from client

Mitigating factors:

  • Unblemished professional and regulatory history over 17 years qualified
  • Full admissions from the outset and full cooperation with investigation
  • Self-reported the matter to the SRA
  • Attended an ethics course at own expense
  • Dishonesty was isolated, not premeditated, lasted only about 90 minutes
  • Misleading email was never actually sent and transaction not prejudiced
  • No benefit derived; no greed; no attempt to avoid penalty
  • Working under significant volume of work, caring responsibilities and mental health issues
  • Three-year delay in bringing matter, during which held unconditional practising certificate

Codes & rules applied

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/12552/