Competence Matters: Disciplinary Digest 

This digest relates to cases published by the respective regulators during weeks ending 3 and 10 July 2026.  

The respondent was admitted to the Roll on 15 January 2013 and at the time in question was a partner at SBP Law, in London. The allegations concerned antisemitic, racist and sexualised comments made towards colleagues, in March 2021, at a firm party on 15 October 2021 and at a firm Christmas party on 10 December 2021, together with allegations that he touched several colleagues in an inappropriate, unwanted and sexual manner. A self report was made to the SRA on 7 February 2022 once the firm had commenced an internal investigation; the firm’s own report followed on 28 February 2022, the day he resigned. 

The Tribunal found breaches of Principles 2, 5 and 6 of the SRA Principles and paragraphs 1.1 and 1.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors etc. The Tribunal found the misconduct of  touching and pinching of colleagues’ bottoms was sexually motivated. The sanction was a suspension from practice for 12 months, commencing on 20 February 2026, with costs subject to detailed assessment. The judgment records distress caused to colleagues, including junior staff who were affected on returning to work after the December event. 

The Tribunal’s reasoning on sanction deserves attention. Two consultant psychiatrists, one instructed by each party, agreed that alcohol was the principal contributor to the behaviour and that, absent such consumption, the misconduct would not have occurred. On that basis the Tribunal reduced culpability from high to medium, while assessing harm, including reputational harm to the profession, as high. The aggravating features included: conduct that was deliberate and repeated; an element of sexual misconduct; language demonstrating hostility towards protected characteristics; that the respondent ought to have known that his behaviour was in material breach of his obligations as a solicitor; and seniority relative to those affected. Against that stood a previously unblemished career and positive testimonials.  

Remediation 

The Tribunal accepted that the respondent recognised the link between alcohol and his misconduct but found that his overall insight remained limited, particularly as to the impact on his colleagues. The respondent indicated willingness to attend remediation training and the Tribunal considered that training in equality, diversity and inclusion, workplace boundaries, sexual harassment and professional ethics would be beneficial, and noted that the SRA could take completed training into account on any future application for a practising certificate.  

The unused window of opportunity 

What strikes me most is the Tribunal’s finding on the gap between the two events. It found that the respondent ought to have taken steps, and assumed greater personal responsibility to ensure that his conduct at the October event was not repeated at the subsequent event in December. Eight weeks sat between those two parties. That was the window of opportunity in which a colleague’s word, a partner’s challenge, or his own honest reckoning with what alcohol was doing to his judgment might have altered the course of events. A tribunal is not necessary to use such an opportunity but it does need a culture in which using it feels psychologically safe.  

Competence mapping (SRA Statement of Solicitor Competence) 

Competence A1a. states that solicitors should recognise ethical issues and exercise effective judgement in addressing them. Failing to recognise that your ethical judgment when interacting with colleagues is as important as it is with clients and client work demonstrates a lack of competence. This is supported by competence A1e. which requires solicitors to respect diversity and act fairly and inclusively.   

Competence C3a requires solicitors to treat others with courtesy and respect and C3 generally requires solicitors to maintain professional relationships. The judgment’s account of colleagues’ distress, and of junior staff affected on their return to work, is a reminder that this competence protects real people in the workplace, and that seniority, particularly at partnership level, raises the stakes rather than lowering them. 

Competence A3 requires solicitors to work within the limits of their competence and the supervision which they need. Whilst this competence is often discussed in terms of technical legal work, a partner will have leadership and managerial responsibilities which fall within their professional competence.  A3b. expressly includes recognising when they have made mistakes or are experiencing difficulties and taking appropriate action. Applied to this case, A3 describes the unused window of opportunity between October and December: recognising that alcohol in a work social setting had become a difficulty, and acting on that recognition before the next event, was itself the competent course. 

Theme 2: Integrity in front of the court: a disbarment for misleading tribunals 

A disciplinary tribunal found that Mr Md Abu Sufian, called to the Bar in 2011, knowingly and dishonestly misled or attempted to mislead courts in immigration and associated judicial review proceedings between June 2017 and June 2018. The published charges record that he assisted with and relied on an application to the Home Office asserting that his client was the primary carer of a child who was in fact the barrister’s own son. He asserted that he had nothing to do with the application and that his wife must have supplied the client with the child’s passport, the tribunal found that he knew the statements were untrue or misleading. The disciplinary tribunal also found that he acted throughout in proceedings in which he had a personal interest in the outcome, so that he was not able to act with independence. The tribunal ordered disbarment, with the sentence still to take effect, and immediate suspension pending any appeal; the finding is recorded as open to appeal.  

The charges were framed by reference to four Core Duties: CD1, the duty to the court in the administration of justice; CD3, the duty to act with honesty, and with integrity; CD4, the duty to maintain independence; and CD5, the duty not to behave in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in you or in the profession. Breaches were also found in relation to specific rules of the Code of Conduct.  

Competence mapping (BSB Professional Statement for Barristers) 

Competence 1.1 (uphold the reputation of the Bar and observe their duty to the court in the administration of justice): in particular, competence 1.1(b)(i) requires barristers to apply the Core Duties and in particular the paramount duty to the court in the administration of justice. Every breach found proved in this case sits beneath that paramount duty. 

Competence 2.1 (act with the utmost integrity and independence at all times, in the interests of justice): competence 2.1a) obliges barristers to identify situations where their integrity and/or independence may be put at risk, and 2.1(b)(iii) requires them to identify potential conflicts of interest, be open about them, and be prepared to exclude themselves from acting. Where a barrister’s own family sits inside the facts of the case, 2.1(b)(iii) describes the competent course: declare the conflict and stand aside. Independence questions need answering before a brief is accepted, not by a disciplinary tribunal afterwards. 

Competence 2.2 (be honest in their dealings with others): at 2.2(c) the Professional Statement states that barristers should ensure that to the best of their knowledge and belief any information they give is accurate, true and not likely to mislead. The disciplinary tribunal’s findings describe the opposite. 

SRA regulatory disposals this week 

Fourteen SRA direct outcomes were published between 29 June and 3 July 2026. I comment on those with sufficient detail to consider relevant competence matters. Four concern anti money laundering behaviours: two firm decisions concerned firm wide risk assessments and related controls that were absent for periods approaching nine years, another firm decision related to missing policies, controls and procedures, and another firm received its second fixed penalty in three months for not submitting AML and sanctions data when asked. The behaviours underneath are consistent: risks not assessed, records not kept, and requests from the regulator not answered.  

Given the impact such matters can have on clients, the regulated individuals running these firms need to ensure competence when doing so and in terms of the Statement of Solicitor Competence the above disposals focus around A1, acting in accordance with legal and regulatory requirements, and D2, keeping accurate, complete and clear records.  

Closing thoughts 

Integrity is a factor in both the SRA and BSB decision.  In one of the SRA disposals the SRA disqualified a non lawyer finance manager, after findings that he caused or allowed client account withdrawals leading to a shortage and fabricated bank balances to mislead others as to his firm’s financial position. The SRA also intervened into Albright Kendrick Law Ltd on grounds including suspected dishonesty by an employee.  

Whilst the regulatory tools differ across the two branches of the profession; the underlying competence question, whether those around practitioners and those given authority in law firms can rely on what they are told, is the same. 

One of the matters in this edition also arose from conduct away from legal work, The  tribunal heard psychiatric evidence that alcohol was the principal contributor to the misconduct; Firms need to ensure that all those working within them know that support exists before conduct becomes a case. LawCare, the mental health charity for the legal sector, offers a free and confidential helpline on 0800 279 6888, together with peer support and funded therapy through the Solicitors’ Charity. A profession in which the first response to a struggling colleague, or to one’s own struggles, is a conversation rather than a concealment will produce better outcomes for all.  

A lesson this week’s decisions teach: openness offered early costs less than silence discovered late. 

Beyond Compliance Limited, for information and educational purposes only. This digest does not constitute legal advice