header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
14 November 2025 / Clare Hughes-Williams
Issue: 8139 / Categories: Features , Profession , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

Dishonesty: Crossing the line

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
235671
Does dishonesty always result in a strike-off? Clare Hughes-Williams considers some exceptional circumstances
  • In disciplinary cases involving solicitors, dishonesty typically results in being struck off the roll. However, the recent SRA v Goodwin case shows that exceptional mitigating circumstances can lead to alternative sanctions.
  • The Goodwin decision—where a solicitor was suspended rather than struck off—joins a small group of cases where personal health issues, stress, or isolated lapses have been accepted as mitigating factors, provided strong evidence supports them.
  • Despite such exceptions, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal continues to uphold a strict approach—only truly exceptional, well-documented cases avoid strike-off for dishonesty.

The recent case of SRA v Goodwin (Case No 12726-2025) is evidence, if further evidence is needed, that when the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) succeeds in proving dishonesty against a solicitor, the starting point in terms of sanction for the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) is that the solicitor should be struck off.

SRA v Goodwin

The facts of this case were that Mr Goodwin sent an email

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll