Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Mayuri Nitin Shah

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number12422/2022
Date04/04/2023
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Failures

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 28,046
Dishonesty foundYes

Mayuri Nitin Shah, a solicitor admitted in 1984 and sole owner/director of Linklaw Solicitors, admitted dishonestly overcharging the estate of a deceased client (Mr SC) by £35,537.50 plus VAT, charging for items not reviewed and attendances that did not occur, and failing to inform the residuary beneficiary (the Wallace Collection charity) of its entitlement for years. She also acted as both executor and conveyancer in the sale of the estate's property while having a personal interest via a discretionary trust connected to the purchaser (Boscola), creating a significant risk of conflict. The SRA withdrew allegations 1.1 and 1.4 and the dishonesty allegation regarding 1.3 as disproportionate given the admissions. The Tribunal, dealing with the matter on the papers via an agreed outcome, found dishonesty expressly admitted and proven, and ordered her struck off the Roll and to pay costs of £28,045.96.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Dishonesty over a lengthy period
  • Knowingly overcharged the estate of a deceased client
  • Misled co-executor regarding sale of property and concealed connection to purchaser
  • Failure to inform the residuary beneficiary (a charity) of its entitlement for years
  • Personal benefit through connection to purchaser via discretionary trust

Mitigating factors:

  • Genuine and sincere apology and remorse
  • 39 years of exemplary and unblemished disciplinary history
  • Co-operation with the SRA investigation and SDT proceedings
  • Genuine insight with open and frank admissions
  • Provided credit notes partially refunding the overcharge

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/12422/