Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Zeeshan Saqib Mian

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number12824/2025
Date07/09/2026
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Dishonesty, Lack of Integrity, Recklessness, SRA Principles 2011

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 40,000
Dishonesty foundYes

Dr Mian, a non-practising solicitor called to the Bar, faced allegations of failing to disclose SRA regulatory information and conditions to the BSB and Lincoln's Inn, and giving false/misleading declarations. Allegation 1.1.1 was found not proved. Allegation 1.1.2 was proved (breaches of Principles 2, 6 and 7) with recklessness but not dishonesty. Allegations 1.1.3 and 1.2 were proved in their entirety including express findings of dishonesty under the Ivey test, the Tribunal finding he deliberately withheld material regulatory information (including SRA practising certificate conditions and, post-call, an SDT referral) that the Inn and BSB were entitled to know. Finding high culpability, deliberate repeated dishonesty and no exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal struck him off the Roll and ordered him to pay costs of £40,000. No fine was imposed in these proceedings (the £20,000 fine referenced was from earlier 2019 proceedings).

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Dishonesty proved in relation to Allegations 1.1.3 and 1.2
  • Deliberate and calculated misconduct
  • Repeated and continued over a significant period, both before and after call
  • Failure to disclose despite express SRA prompt in December 2017 asking whether he had notified the BSB
  • Experienced solicitor and solicitor advocate with direct control over disclosure
  • Previous disciplinary history (though not treated as directly bearing on this misconduct)

Mitigating factors:

  • Personal and professional pressure at the material time (anxiety, decline of his firm)
  • Complex underlying regulatory history and genuine dispute about status of SRA matters
  • Engagement with the SRA and BSB rather than closing eyes to the issue
  • Accepted with hindsight he should have disclosed

Codes & rules applied

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/12824/