Shezhad Ilyas

Introduction

Shezhad Ilyas is an England and Wales solicitor, admitted in 2012, who was struck off the roll by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) in 2026 after he was found to have provided the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) with information he knew was misleading. At the time of the misconduct he was the owner of Bradford-based firm Goldmark Legal Services Limited. He faced three allegations arising out of his representation of a client in litigation connected to a road traffic accident: failing to adequately comply with three court orders, which led to wasted costs orders against the firm and the claim being struck out; giving misleading answers in cross-examination at Bradford County Court by omitting to disclose that his client was an employee at his firm and that he and the client were co-directors of more than one company; and providing the SRA with inaccurate information about his connection to the client. The tribunal struck him off and ordered him to pay £28,000 in costs.

Background Information

Ilyas was admitted as a solicitor in 2012 and owned Goldmark Legal Services Limited, a firm based in Bradford, at the time of the misconduct. The matter that reached the SDT began as a road traffic accident claim handled at his firm, in which liability had already been admitted and costs of £15,000 had been incurred by the time the claim was struck out. The case was heard by a three-person panel at the SDT — the tribunal that hears misconduct allegations against solicitors in England and Wales — and Ilyas admitted manifest incompetence in relation to the court orders while denying dishonesty or lack of integrity.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found three allegations: Ilyas’s admitted incompetence over court orders was found proved with a lack of integrity finding; a second allegation about his evidence in court was proved but the tribunal explicitly did NOT find him dishonest or lacking integrity on it; the third, providing the SRA with information he knew was misleading, was found proved and dishonest. The findings are regulatory adjudications before the SDT — not criminal convictions.

The first allegation was that, when representing a client in litigation arising from a road traffic accident, Ilyas failed to adequately comply with three court orders, which led to wasted costs orders being made against the firm and the claim being struck out. Ilyas admitted manifest incompetence in relation to the court orders. On the second day of the substantive hearing, the three-person panel found his admissions properly made in relation to the first allegation, including that his conduct was manifestly incompetent, and it also found that his conduct lacked integrity.

The second allegation concerned Ilyas’s evidence in court. In cross-examination during a hearing at Bradford County Court, he provided answers which were misleading in that he omitted to disclose that his client was an employee at the firm and that he and the client were co-directors of more than one company. The SDT found this allegation proved but did not find he lacked integrity or that he was dishonest. Chair John Abramson said Ilyas’s omission — that his client was also his employee or that they were co-directors of two companies — was ‘inadvertent’, adding: ‘The respondent made a mistake in difficult circumstances based on him receiving bad news around the time of the hearing.’

The third allegation was that Ilyas provided the SRA with inaccurate information in relation to his connection to the client. It was found proved, including that the conduct was dishonest. The chair described Ilyas’s answer to the SRA’s question over an email as ‘inaccurate and misleading’.

In a short summary of the tribunal’s decisions, the chair said: ‘The root cause of the mistakes was that the respondent handed the delegating of this matter to a paralegal with little or no experience of small claims. We find the respondent did not exercise adequate supervision of the paralegal nor gave adequate attention to the file, as a result, the claim was struck out when liability had already been admitted and costs incurred of £15,000.’ The chair added that Ilyas ‘failed to adhere to the highest standards expected of a solicitor’.

Public Reaction and Consequences

In cross-examination, Ilyas told the tribunal that at the time of the wasted costs orders he was working seven days a week every two weeks. He said: ‘Ultimately, mistakes were made. Things should have been dealt with more efficiently…it was not intentional [nor] deliberate. I did supervise but I did not give it my full attention or full care…and ultimately that is why there have been so many slippages and so many mistakes.’

The tribunal also took into account that the fallout had been contained: it previously heard that Ilyas had paid both wasted costs orders and that the client had suffered no loss or harm. That did not alter the outcome. Striking Ilyas off the roll, the tribunal also ordered him to pay £28,000 costs, and the Law Gazette’s report of the case was headlined around his dishonesty to the SRA.

Current Status

Ilyas is struck off the roll, which removes his ability to practise as a solicitor in England and Wales, and he was ordered to pay £28,000 in costs. The SDT’s decision was reported on 15 June 2026, and the report does not indicate any appeal against the outcome.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The strike-off ends Ilyas’s career as a solicitor more than a decade after his 2012 admission. The tribunal’s split findings shape how the record reads: the incompetence over court orders was admitted and paired with a lack of integrity finding, but the tribunal expressly stopped short of dishonesty on his courtroom evidence, describing that omission as inadvertent and a mistake made in difficult circumstances based on bad news received around the time of the hearing. The dishonesty finding that anchored the strike-off attached to his dealings with the regulator — providing the SRA with information he knew was misleading — rather than to the conduct in court or the underlying litigation, in which the client suffered no loss or harm and Ilyas had paid both wasted costs orders. His own account to the tribunal framed the failures as workload-driven: he said he did not give the file his full attention or full care, and that was why there had been so many slippages and so many mistakes.

Sources

• Law Gazette, “Solicitor struck off over dishonesty to SRA,” Jun 15, 2026 — source