Nadir Suleman & Aadiel Salya

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

The SRA brought allegations against two solicitors arising from criminal convictions for conspiracy to defraud connected to sham companies making fraudulent and exaggerated personal injury and vehicle hire claims. The First Respondent pleaded guilty (4 years imprisonment) and admitted the allegations; the Second Respondent was convicted after trial (2 years imprisonment) and denied the allegations, seeking an adjournment pending an appeal and arguing fresh evidence amounted to exceptional circumstances allowing the Tribunal to go behind the conviction. The Tribunal proceeded in both Respondents' absence, refused the adjournment, and found no exceptional circumstances, treating the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof. Both Respondents were found to have breached Principles 1, 2 and 6. Dishonesty was expressly established through the convictions for offences of dishonesty. Both were struck off the Roll, with costs of £5,365.40 sought.

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• No taking unfair advantage
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• No conflict between current clients

Aggravating factors:

• Conviction for an offence of dishonesty
• Conduct was deliberate, calculated and repeated
• Offence involved concealment
• Motivated by greed
• Pre-planned offence
• Breach of trust of others
• Substantial harm and significant financial loss (First Respondent: actual loss £402,191.93 plus potential £107,500)
• For Second Respondent: contested matter to trial, denied allegations before Tribunal, demonstrated no insight, attempted to stall proceedings

Mitigating factors:

• Previously unblemished record/career for both Respondents
• Degree of co-operation with the regulator
• For First Respondent: admission of allegations, guilty plea, expression of remorse and insight
• Positive character references and charitable/community work noted by sentencing judge