(unnamed respondent)

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

The Applicant, struck off in February 2022 following findings including dishonesty (providing misleading information regarding legal aid and professional indemnity insurance, and practising without valid PII), applied for restoration to the Roll. This was his second restoration application, made within the six-year period the Tribunal's guidance treats as premature save in exceptional circumstances. The Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances: medical evidence did not materially assist, evidence of maintaining professional knowledge/CPD was insufficient, rehabilitation evidence was limited (mostly assistance to persons known personally), no current employment/supervision arrangements existed, and the Applicant demonstrated only limited insight and a lack of candour (notably presenting his former wife/carer as merely someone he had helped, and referring to an 'unblemished career' despite regulatory history and a 2017 civil finding that he had lied). The Tribunal was not satisfied the public would be proud to readmit him. Application refused; costs of £5,000 ordered against him (reduced from £8,760 sought, given limited but unreliably evidenced means).

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["review_dishonesty_finding_cue_present"]