Jayesh Sasdev

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

Jayesh Sasdev, a partner and sole equity owner of Archer Fields Solicitors, handled the estate of a deceased solicitor (Person MA) on behalf of the widow, Client A. The Tribunal found he charged excessive and unjustified costs of up to £256,907.96, including up to £75,000 plus VAT for storing files at his own premises (no real cost to him), arbitrary 'estate agency commission' camouflaged as third-party fees without consent, and improper charges for liaising with the SRA about his own conduct and for text messages. This overcharging was found to be dishonest, taking advantage of a vulnerable, non-English-speaking client who trusted him. He failed to provide adequate costs information, estimates, invoices or completion statements; failed to wind up the estate promptly over 6-8 years; failed to distribute residual client balances of approximately £279,807.53; sought to prevent Client A and her sister from providing information to the SRA (including drafting letters and being present on calls to control what was said); failed to cooperate with the SRA; and failed to deliver accountant's reports on time. The Tribunal found dishonesty and breaches of Principles 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10, various SAR rules and Code Outcomes. He was struck off and ordered to pay costs of £69,233.30. His subsequent appeal to the High Court was struck out.

Duties found breached:

• Act in the client's best interests
• Cooperate openly with regulators
• Integrity
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• Not misrepresent regulated status
• Uphold public trust in the profession

Aggravating factors:

• Dishonesty found
• Motivated by personal financial gain / pressure from business partner to maximise income
• Deliberate, calculated and repeated conduct
• Targeted client's vulnerability and lack of English
• Coerced client into not communicating with the SRA
• Conduct continued throughout retainer and afterwards via the Final Bill
• Sought to mislead the regulator and other parties
• Abused trust client placed in him

Mitigating factors:

• No previous disciplinary matters
• Respondent submitted misconduct arose from a single client matter and was a one-off with negligible risk of recurrence (submission largely rejected by Tribunal)