Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Graeme Henry Taylor; Russell Harvey Shapiro

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number12589/2024
Date13/12/2024
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Code of Conduct 2007, Code of Conduct 2011, Code of Conduct for Solicitors, REL's & RFL's 2019, Dishonesty, Lack of Integrity, SRA Principles 2011, SRA Principles 2019

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 70,000
Dishonesty foundYes

Graeme Taylor (head of probate) and Russell Shapiro (head of conveyancing), partners at Gelbergs, acted in the transfer of properties from the estate of the late Mohammed Taj. Over 2010-2020 they knowingly caused/allowed TR1 and AP1 documents to be submitted to HM Land Registry recording fictitious names/aliases (e.g. Maurice Slater, Nicola Webb, Lisa Sinks, Frank Noble, Martin Lagoda) as transferees, concealing the true beneficial owners (Mr Ali and Mrs Ali), and the First Respondent falsely certified signatures of non-existent persons. The First Respondent admitted the acts and lack of integrity but denied dishonesty and did not attend; the Second Respondent initially made admissions then resiled, blaming the First Respondent's misuse of his file references. The Tribunal found all allegations proved against both, including dishonesty, lack of integrity and breach of public trust. Both were struck off. Costs of £70,000 apportioned £60,000 to the First Respondent (as instigator) and £10,000 to the Second Respondent, severally.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Conduct was dishonest
  • Actions were deliberate, considered, calculated and repeated over a lengthy period
  • Conduct designed to circumvent rules intended to protect the public
  • Direct control and responsibility for the misconduct
  • Experienced, long-standing partners who understood the nature of their misconduct
  • No genuine insight; Second Respondent later resiled from admissions

Mitigating factors:

  • No previous disciplinary findings against either Respondent

Codes & rules applied

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/12589/