Jayesh Sasdev

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

Jayesh Sasdev, an experienced solicitor and sole equity owner of Archer Fields Solicitors, was found to have charged excessive and unjustified costs (up to £256,907.96) in handling Person MA's estate for a vulnerable widow client with limited English. This included charging up to £75,000 plus VAT to store files at his own premises, £10,000 estate agency commission without agreement, and charging for liaising with the SRA about his own conduct. The Tribunal found his conduct dishonest, noting he took advantage of his client's trust and vulnerability knowing she would not challenge the charges. He also failed to provide adequate costs information, failed to wind up the estate promptly over 6-8 years, failed to distribute residual client balances (£279,807.53), failed to cooperate with the SRA (including seeking to prevent the client and her sister from providing information to the SRA and being present during a call telling the client what to say), and failed to deliver accountant's reports on time. All allegations were found proved. The Tribunal ordered him struck off the Roll and to pay costs of £69,233.30. His subsequent appeal to the High Court was struck out for non-compliance with directions.

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• No improper communication with the court
• No taking unfair advantage
• Act in the client's best interests
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• No improper use of client money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Cooperate openly with regulators

Aggravating factors:

• Finding of dishonesty
• Conduct was deliberate, calculated and repeated
• Targeted client's vulnerability and lack of English
• Motivated by personal financial gain and pressure from partner to increase income
• Coerced client into not communicating with the SRA
• Sought to conceal misconduct from regulator
• Deliberately misled regulator and other parties
• Pattern of behaviour continued throughout retainer and thereafter with delivery of Final Bill
• Caused immense harm to client and her sister

Mitigating factors:

• No previous disciplinary matters
• Respondent submitted misconduct arose from a single client matter