Skip to main content
discipline 4 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Mansoor Ali

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number11595/2017
Date01/01/2017
OutcomeSuspend - Indefinite

Allegation / charges

Breaches

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

SanctionSuspension
CostsGBP 19,481
Dishonesty foundNo

Mansoor Ali, a solicitor and partner at One Source Solicitors, continued to act for an immigration client (Mr A) and filed an application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on 28 February 2014, despite Mr A having told him on 27 February and 4 March 2014 that he had purchased/bribed to obtain CAS certificates, had never genuinely attended college and was working full time. The appeal was based at least in part on Mr A continuing in education. The Tribunal found the Respondent lacked credibility, acted without integrity (Principle 2), failed to uphold the rule of law (Principle 1), failed to maintain public trust (Principle 6), and recklessly misled the court (Outcome 5.1). Dishonesty was not alleged. Both allegations were proved beyond reasonable doubt. Given the seriousness, his reckless misleading of the court and complete lack of insight, the Tribunal imposed an indefinite suspension and ordered costs of £19,481.00.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Conduct was deliberate, calculated and planned
  • Misconduct repeated over a period (two conversations, before and after filing the appeal)
  • Recklessly misled the court as an officer of the court
  • Misled the regulator and maintained his account through to the hearing
  • Breach of a position of trust
  • Complete lack of insight
  • Harm to the reputation of the profession

Mitigating factors:

  • Respondent was inexperienced (only about two years post-qualification) with irregular supervision
  • Previously unblemished career with no prior disciplinary matters
  • Misconduct was of relatively short duration
  • There may have been deception of the Respondent by the client (Mr A)
  • Client suffered no direct financial harm and did not pay the Respondent

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["review_dishonesty_finding_cue_present"]

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/11595/