Raj Rajan Mariaddan

Introduction

Raj Rajan Mariaddan is a former solicitor who practised in London under the name John Street Solicitors and was struck off the roll in February 2022 for providing misleading information to a law firm and to a broker in connection with an indemnity insurance renewal, while continuing to practise — including holding client money — without valid indemnity insurance. He has since failed twice to persuade the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) to restore him: his first application for restoration was refused in October 2025, and his second was refused after a hearing in August 2026, with the tribunal ordering him to pay the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) £5,000 in costs.

Background Information

Mariaddan was a London sole practitioner operating under the name John Street Solicitors until April 2019, when he entered into partnership with another individual who used the same firm name. In February 2022 he was struck off and ordered to pay £30,948 in costs. His first attempt at restoration was refused in October 2025, when he was ordered to pay costs of more than £4,000 — £4,150, per the tribunal’s later account of what he owed from that failed application. By the time of the second application he had been discharged from bankruptcy.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated. The 2022 strike-off and both restoration refusals are adjudicated regulatory outcomes of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, the professional tribunal that hears cases against solicitors. They are findings and orders made in regulatory proceedings — not criminal convictions, and the source reports no criminal charge or trial.

The conduct that ended his career centred on professional indemnity insurance. The tribunal found that Mariaddan provided misleading information to a law firm and to a broker in connection with an indemnity insurance renewal, and that he had continued to practise — including holding client money — without valid indemnity insurance. He was struck off in February 2022 and ordered to pay £30,948 in costs.

Restoration proved no easier. His first application was refused in October 2025, with costs of more than £4,000 ordered against him. The second application was heard in August 2026. Giving its decision, the tribunal noted that an application for restoration made within six years of the original strike-off was likely to be regarded as premature ‘save in the most exceptional circumstances’.

Public Reaction and Consequences

Mariaddan submitted that he had demonstrated insight, remorse and rehabilitation since the breaches that led to his ban, and called on the tribunal to take account of his medical history, including cardiac arrest, stroke and cognitive difficulties, which he said ‘provided important context to the circumstances in which the misconduct had occurred’. He gave evidence referring to cognitive difficulties which ‘may have been caused’ by a hypoxic event, but accepted that his medical records did not contain a diagnosis of hypoxic brain injury. He also said certain medical records relied upon by him had existed previously but had not, in his view, been properly put before earlier tribunals.

The tribunal was unpersuaded. It stated that ‘certain aspects of his evidence tended to minimise his own responsibility and draw attention instead to that of others and focus upon matters relating to his former business partner, intervention into his practice and the consequences which he himself had suffered.’ It found that this demonstrated, at best, ‘only limited insight into the misconduct which led to his strike-off and its wider implications for public confidence in the profession.’

Other aspects of his evidence also gave rise to concern, including ‘references to an “unblemished career” notwithstanding the applicant’s regulatory history and judicial observations made in separate civil proceedings in 2017 concerning the applicant’s credibility and reliability.’ He claimed to be a low future risk to the public and said that, if restored, he would practise only in a limited and supervised capacity. The SRA sought costs of £8,760; the chair acknowledged the applicant’s limited means and made an order of £5,000.

Current Status

Mariaddan remains struck off the roll. His second restoration application has been refused, and he must pay the SRA £5,000 in costs. He had not paid the £4,150 in costs ordered after the failed October 2025 application, having believed those costs had been written off by the SRA. He has been discharged from bankruptcy. No restoration is in place, and the second refusal — reported on 24 September 2026 — is the most recent outcome in his case.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The second refusal leaves Mariaddan unable to practise as a solicitor, and his proposal to return only in a limited and supervised capacity failed along with the application. The tribunal’s guidance that a restoration application made within six years of a strike-off is likely to be seen as premature ‘save in the most exceptional circumstances’ sets a high bar for any future attempt. Its finding that his evidence showed only limited insight — pointing instead to his former business partner, the intervention into his practice and the consequences he himself had suffered — removes the main ground on which readmission applications succeed. The financial weight has also accumulated: £30,948 in costs from the 2022 strike-off, £4,150 from the first restoration bid, and £5,000 from the second, ordered against a backdrop the chair described when acknowledging his limited means. His medical history — cardiac arrest, stroke and cognitive difficulties — was placed before the tribunal but did not result in restoration.

Sources

• Law Gazette, “Struck-off ex-solicitor fails with second bid for readmission,” Sep 24, 2026 — source