Skip to main content
discipline 4 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Raj Rajan Mariaddan

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number12218/2021
Date22/02/2022
OutcomeStrike off

Appeals and appellate references

“Unverified” means the upstream page linked an appellate judgment but did not preserve enough context to prove that it was an appeal in this matter.

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Failures

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 30,948
Dishonesty foundYes

The Respondent, a solicitor at John Street Solicitors LLP, was found to have dishonestly provided misleading information to a law firm (Firm A) representing the Legal Aid Agency about his bank accounts, income and employment status in order to reduce his liability for a debt. He also dishonestly provided misleading information to an insurance broker (Company B) on a professional indemnity renewal form, failing to disclose an ongoing SRA investigation, his conditional practising certificates and previous Tribunal penalty orders. He further failed to maintain valid PII and continued to practise, including holding client money, without valid insurance. The Tribunal made express findings of dishonesty on allegations 1.1 and 1.2. All four allegations were proved. The Respondent was struck off and ordered to pay costs of £30,947.64. His appeal to the High Court was dismissed.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Proven dishonesty
  • Conduct was deliberate, planned and calculated
  • Sought to blame office manager for inaccuracies on insurance renewal form
  • Experienced solicitor with two previous Tribunal appearances (one involving inaccurate/misleading information)
  • Material breach of obligation to protect the public and maintain confidence in the profession

Mitigating factors:

  • No complaint from any client, other firm, or insurer
  • Long-standing solicitor
  • No previous finding of dishonesty
  • Not currently practising and unlikely to practise in future due to health

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/12218/