Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Azfar Bajwa

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number11649/2017
Date01/01/2017
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Failures

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 37,500
Dishonesty foundNo

Azfar Naseem Bajwa, principal of A Bajwa & Co, was found to have facilitated abuse of litigation by bringing totally without merit Judicial Review claims for immigration clients in detention or facing imminent removal, to thwart removal or secure release; to have misled Clients 1, 6 and 7 about their prospects of success; breached his duty to the Upper Tribunal by advancing unarguable submissions; and failed to adequately supervise unadmitted fee earners (his father, brother and Person B). The Tribunal found breaches of Principles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 and lack of integrity, but made NO finding of dishonesty. Allegation 1.2 was not proved regarding Client 4, and Allegation 1.4 (alternative) was not considered. The Tribunal ordered the Respondent be struck off the Roll and pay costs of £37,500.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Misconduct was deliberate and repeated over approximately two years
  • Clients in immigration system are often very vulnerable
  • Respondent knew he was in material breach of his obligations
  • Previous appearance before the Tribunal in 2010 where he admitted misconduct (sham partnership) and was fined £2,000
  • Lack of insight and tendency to blame others (father, brother, secretary, Person B)
  • Motivated by desire to grow business/commercial advantage

Mitigating factors:

  • Offered refunds to some clients
  • Cooperated with the SRA
  • No client complaints made to the SRA
  • Reduction in JR work and outsourcing/obtaining counsel's advice going forward

Duties engaged

Other decisions involving this respondent

  • Decision 2019-09-19 · BTAS · England & Wales

Matched by respondent name — may include a different person with the same name.

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/11649/