14 November 2025 / Clare Hughes-Williams

Issue: 8139 / Categories: Features , Profession , Regulatory

Dishonesty: Crossing the line

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

Dishonesty: Crossing the line

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.

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Arc Pensions Law—Matthew Swynnerton

Chair of the Association of Pension Lawyers joins as partner

Ampa Group—Kamal Chauhan

Group names Shakespeare Martineau partner head of Sheffield office

Blake Morgan—four promotions

Four legal directors promoted to partner across UK offices

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Renters’ Rights revolution begins—brace for tribunal chaos

The abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC

NLJ this week: Civil procedure gets a spring overhaul

Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation

NLJ this week: Why GP complaints are going nowhere

Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group

NLJ this week: Prenups meet a jurisdictional brick wall

A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision

NLJ this week: Has Rylands v Fletcher come back from the dead?

An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading

Error message

Dishonesty: Crossing the line

SRA v Goodwin

SRA v Goodwin

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Arc Pensions Law—Matthew Swynnerton

Ampa Group—Kamal Chauhan

Blake Morgan—four promotions