Dishonesty: Crossing the line

14 November 2025 / Clare Hughes-Williams

Issue: 8139 / Categories: Features , Profession , Regulatory

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 intended

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 intended

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

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

Morae—Carla Mendy

Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Set welcomes two experienced juniors as new tenants

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Alarm bells over Mazur

The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week

NLJ this week: Jury trial & a constitutional illusion

Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition

NLJ this week: The rise—and risks—of going private

Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Human rights disputes push courts to redefine their role

The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Debarment orders—shortcut or minefield?

In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof

Error message

Dishonesty: Crossing the line

SRA v Goodwin

SRA v Goodwin

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Morae—Carla Mendy

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du