Syed Muzaher Naqvi

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

The Respondent, a sole practitioner immigration solicitor, was secretly recorded in two interviews by an undercover reporter (Client A) posing as someone seeking to remain in the UK. In the second interview Client A made clear he intended to apply for a spouse/partner visa based on a relationship that was not genuine. The Tribunal found beyond reasonable doubt that the Respondent failed to advise that such an application would be unlawful, advised Client A not to disclose that the relationship was not genuine, indicated willingness to advise/assist, and coached Client A on evidence (joint living proofs, choice of EU spouse) to enhance prospects of success. The Tribunal rejected abuse of process/entrapment arguments, finding Saluja rather than Loosley applicable, and rejected claims the recordings were edited. All allegations proved including express findings of dishonesty on allegations 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4. No exceptional circumstances found; Respondent struck off and ordered to pay costs of £24,946.50. Subsequent appeals to the High Court and Court of Appeal failed.

Duties found breached:

• Professional independence
• No taking unfair advantage
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Act in the client's best interests

Aggravating factors:

• Dishonesty
• Respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known his conduct was in material breach of his obligations
• Significant damage to reputation of profession via national television broadcast

Mitigating factors:

• Respondent notified the SRA himself
• Single episode in a previously unblemished career
• Fully engaged with proceedings