The Tribunal’s decision dated 2 September 2026 is subject to appeal to the High Court (Administrative Court) by the Respondent. The Order remains in force pending the High Court’s decision on the appeal.

The Tribunal found Allegation 1.1.1 not proved. Although Dr Mian had received the SRA’s letter of 15 December 2015, had been provided with the Forensic Investigation Report and knew that the SRA process might result in regulatory action, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the wording of the BSB Admission Application created a sufficiently clear obligation to disclose those matters. The declaration did not contain an express warning to disclose if in doubt and the evidence from the BSB’s Senior Authorisation and Supervision Officer did not support a finding that Dr Mian had breached a rule by failing to disclose the SRA matter at that stage.

Allegation 1.1.2 was found proved. By 4 May 2016, Dr Mian knew that the SRA was considering imposing conditions on his practising certificate, and the Inn’s Admission and Call Declarations required disclosure of matters which might reasonably be thought to call into question fitness to become a practising barrister, expressly directing disclosure if in doubt. The Tribunal rejected Dr Mian’s contention that the proposed conditions were irrelevant because they concerned only solicitors’ practice management. The Tribunal found breaches of Principles 2, 6 and 7; it did not find dishonesty proved in relation to Allegation 1.1.2 but found that Dr Mian had acted recklessly.

The Tribunal found Allegation 1.1.3 proved in its entirety, including dishonesty. By September and November 2016, Dr Mian knew that formal conditions had been imposed on his practising certificate and upheld by the SRA Adjudication Panel, knew that those conditions were serious and knew that he had not notified the Inn or the BSB. The Tribunal rejected his explanation that he honestly believed the conditions were irrelevant because they related only to solicitors’ practice management, finding that he knew the information was material and deliberately failed to notify the Inn or BSB before call.

Allegation 1.2 was also found proved in its entirety, including dishonesty. The Tribunal relied on its findings in relation to Allegation 1.1.3 and found that, after call, Dr Mian was subject to Rule C65.3 of the BSB Handbook and was required to report the SRA conditions, continuing regulatory enquiries, the open complaint and, from 3 April 2018, the referral to the SDT. His disagreement with the SRA’s position and his assertion that matters had been closed did not remove the obligation to report regulatory information and the later referral. The Tribunal found that his failure to notify the BSB was deliberate, breached Principles 2, 6 and 7, and was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.

The Tribunal determined that in all the circumstances, the only reasonable and proportionate sanction was to strike Dr Mian off the Roll of Solicitors.