S Mireskandari & C S Turbin

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

Three solicitors of Dean & Dean faced SDT proceedings brought by the SRA. The First Respondent (Mireskandari), principal and owner of the firm, was found to have committed widespread and serious misconduct including misuse of client money (£200,000 court bail security and £123,500 mortgage money held under undertaking), false statements to courts and another solicitor, a scheme to pass off reconstructed injury photographs as genuine, non-payment of counsel fees (~£1.1m), PII misrepresentations, using another firm as a facade, and pre-admission misrepresentations including failure to disclose US fraud convictions and obtaining qualifications by misrepresentation. Dishonesty was expressly found on 21 of 23 proved allegations; he was struck off and ordered to pay £1,400,000 costs on an indemnity basis. The Second Respondent (Turbin), a salaried partner, had all 14 allegations proved, with dishonesty found on 3 (false impression to court re bail money, false evidence about overhearing a conversation, and inconsistent/misleading explanations re a £100,000 transfer) and recklessness on 4; she was struck off and ordered to pay £84,060 costs. The Third Respondent, held out as a partner but with no real management role, had all 10 allegations proved including recklessness re a PII misrepresentation; no dishonesty or lack of integrity was found; he was suspended for 12 months and ordered to pay £21,600 costs. The Tribunal rejected the First Respondent's extensive abuse-of-process allegations against the SRA.

Duties found breached:

• Comply with and respect court orders
• Continuity and handover of representation
• Fair, reasonable and lawful fees
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper communication with the court
• No improper use of client money
• No prejudicial publicity for pending cases
• No tampering with or coaching witnesses
• Not mislead the court
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Segregate client money

Aggravating factors:

• Express findings of dishonesty against First Respondent on 21 of 23 proved allegations
• Conduct over a considerable period showing blatant disregard for professional obligations
• Financial damage caused to former clients and counsel with no redress made
• First Respondent posed significant ongoing risk to public with no means of rehabilitation
• Failure to engage with investigation and repeated disruptive/adjournment applications
• Failure to pay numerous adverse costs orders

Mitigating factors:

• Second Respondent: dominated by forceful First Respondent, inexperienced as partner, only made partner shortly before events, no previous disciplinary findings, took some steps to remedy breaches
• Third Respondent: no dishonesty found, no lack of integrity, naive/passive understanding of partner obligations, long distinguished CPS career, resigned promptly on becoming aware of problems, retired with no intention to practise again