A former solicitor who was struck off the roll after he was caught by an undercover journalist giving advice on a sham marriage to circumvent immigration rules has failed in his bid to be restored to the roll.

Zulfiqar Ali, admitted in November 2010, was struck off following a hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in 2019. He was found to have advised the reporter on a sham marriage and, while acting in relation to a property development, to have caused and/or permitted client money to be paid into his office account rather than the client account. More than £800,000 was transferred.

The SDT’s decision was later quashed by the High Court on a procedural issue and remitted for reconsideration by the tribunal. Ali was struck off again in 2020. Ali’s appeal to the High Court was dismissed in 2021 and the Court of Appeal rejected his application for leave to appeal in March 2022.

Ali, who is currently working as a prison officer, appeared before the SDT this week seeking restoration to the roll. The ex-solicitor, who represented himself, said his jobs since he had been struck off the roll ‘required a person of integrity, an honest person, a reliable person’.

He added: ‘It does go in my favour [that I have been] a reliable person in the last five, six years. I do understand my mistakes and I regret it and I do apologise. I do apologise to the public through this tribunal and the SRA and anybody affected in the last six, seven years.

‘I am a changed person. I have learnt a lot in the last six years working in different jobs and thinking about the mistakes I have made and how to improve myself.’

Ali told the three-person panel he had applied to be a McKenzie friend for a former client in a family court hearing. He also said he planned to speak to the Ministry of Justice and Government Legal Department in relation to a potential job if he were to be restored.

Ravi Jackson, for the SRA, said the application for restoration should be refused. ‘This is a case, in my submission, where the original findings were very serious indeed. A contested finding of dishonesty would take exceptional reasons in support of an application in order for the tribunal to grant restoration,’ he said, adding that ‘the facts and evidence before the tribunal do not establish exceptional reasons to grant the application’.

On the contrary, he said, Ali’s application was brought in a relative short period after the strike off. 'There is very limited evidence and no real documentary evidence of rehabilitation by Mr Ali. There is limited evidence of Mr Ali being employed in a legal capacity if restoration is granted.'

After more than half an hour's deliberation, the panel returned with their decision.

Chair Edward Nally said the SDT dismissed the application for restoration. Ali had not brought strong evidence of rehabilitation and the tribunal had ‘not received very much in terms of written evidence’.

Dismissing Ali’s application, the chair said: ‘We do not think the application collectively or individually remotely reached the level of evidence and reassurance that we need to restore on the roll Mr Ali, so we reject your application.’

Ali was also ordered to pay £3,000 costs – less than half of the £6,425 the SRA had sought. A written judgment with full reasons will follow.