Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Matthew Moss

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number12910/2026
Date18/08/2026
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

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

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 5,759
Dishonesty foundYes

Matthew Moss, a solicitor at Optimal Solicitors, worked as a 'legal expert' for JustAnswer from around 2021 without disclosing this to his firm as required by his employment contract. At a formal investigation meeting on 7 June 2024 he provided false information, denying he worked for JustAnswer and claiming payments into his account were for his brother's benefit. He admitted all allegations including dishonesty. The Tribunal, dealing with the matter on the papers via an agreed outcome, found the allegations proved and that the conduct was dishonest. It ordered strike off as the only appropriate sanction and costs of £5,759.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Deliberate provision of false information in response to legitimate employer enquiries
  • Attempt to conceal own involvement by attributing payments to his brother
  • Conduct undertaken to protect himself

Mitigating factors:

  • Single one-off incident, not a sustained course of dishonesty
  • Under immense personal and professional stress following redundancy notice
  • Psychiatric report evidencing Generalised Anxiety Disorder, Panic Disorder and depression
  • No prior regulatory history / previously unblemished record
  • No client money misused and no client harmed or misled
  • Genuine remorse and insight; cooperated with SRA and admitted the truth
  • Steps taken to address anxiety and panic disorder
  • Family circumstances including a child with additional needs

Codes & rules applied

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/12910/