Soham Nitin Panchamiya

Introduction

Soham Nitin Panchamiya is a solicitor, admitted in 2017, whose time at the US law firm Reed Smith ended with the most severe sanction the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) can impose: he was struck off. The case involved no clients, no client money and no question over his legal work — only a sustained lie about his own health. Between late September and mid-November 2023, Panchamiya told his employer that his cancer had returned, described hospital admission, surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy that never took place, and produced a medical report the doctor named in it had never written. He admitted acting dishonestly, and the tribunal described his conduct as “multiple acts of dishonesty” over almost two months.

The case is a study in how a single falsehood forces ever more elaborate cover stories: he had “numerous opportunities to correct the false impression made before he was confronted by the firm”, did not do so, and instead “compounded his initial lie with further acts of dishonesty, including taking the extraordinary step of falsifying medical evidence”.

Background Information

What is publicly known of Panchamiya’s career comes from what emerged before the SDT. He was admitted as a solicitor in 2017 and worked at Reed Smith in two spells: January to October 2019, and October 2021 to January 2024. The events leading to his striking off began in September 2023. He was then 31, by the account in the report he later supplied, which described “a 31 year old male with multiple previous instances of what appeared to be early stage osteosarcoma”, an aggressive form of bone cancer.

The tribunal also weighed his personal circumstances. It examined “with care” a genuine medical report on his mental health and said it was “sympathetic to Mr Panchamiya’s personal difficulties and mental health issues” — while concluding those difficulties “were not exceptional”.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated vs. alleged. The dishonesty findings in this case were made by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, but the core of the misconduct is admitted rather than merely found: Panchamiya admitted acting dishonestly. His mental-health mitigation was genuinely examined — the tribunal studied a genuine medical report “with care” — but it did not carry: the SDT held that his difficulties “were not exceptional” and rejected his argument that “exceptional circumstances” should spare him from being struck off.

The deception began on 22 September 2023, when Panchamiya emailed his line manager asking to take the following week off as annual leave because “unfortunately, my cancer is back and I’m not handling it very well”. He added: “There’s a lot of doctors’ appointments and I don’t think I’ll be able to focus on work while dealing with this news.” Told he could, he replied that he was being admitted to hospital the next day for surgery.

In early October, he told an HR manager he was “technically clear of spine cancer, after surgery to remove a lump from his spine. Currently undergoing preventative chemo treatment”. A few days later he declined to share medical information with the firm, called the cancer a “blip” and said it would be “over by January”.

Later that month the story shifted again: he told the firm he had “decided to stop treatment, so I am all good now”, said at a meeting that cancer was “his thing to go through”, and claimed he had been treated with low-level radiation on his lower back.

Then, on 19 October, he provided Reed Smith with a medical report. It opened: “Patient is a 31 year old male with multiple previous instances of what appeared to be early stage osteosarcoma”, and continued: “Latest procedure on 22 September was reportedly successful. Preventative radiotherapy was strongly recommended by patient’s physician, patient started treatment but chose not to continue.” The HR manager had “concerns” about its authenticity: the doctor’s name was spelled inconsistently, the licence number was incorrect and there were formatting errors. Contacted by her, the doctor replied that he had assessed Panchamiya once and found nothing wrong. He had not written the report. Panchamiya was suspended after an investigation meeting with his line manager and the HR manager in mid-November 2023.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The reaction on the record is the tribunal’s own, reported in January 2026. The SDT said: “His dishonesty was neither minor nor trivial; its seriousness increased with each instance of dishonesty undertaken.” It stressed that he had numerous opportunities to correct the false impression before being confronted, and instead compounded the initial lie with further acts of dishonesty, “including taking the extraordinary step of falsifying medical evidence”.

The tribunal also rejected his mitigation. Not satisfied that his difficulties “meant that he did not know what he was doing”, nor that “but for his difficulties, he would have acted differently”, it found that “despite his mental health and other issues, Mr Panchamiya knew that his conduct was dishonest”. Sympathy did not make them “exceptional”. The consequence was the loss of his professional status: Panchamiya was struck off and ordered to pay £22,000 in costs.

Current Status

As of the ruling reported in January 2026, Panchamiya is a struck-off solicitor. He has lost the status he had held since 2017; his employment at Reed Smith had already ended in January 2024. He remains subject to the £22,000 costs order. No appeal or reinstatement is recorded in the source reporting.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The striking off ends Panchamiya’s career as a solicitor: removal from the roll was imposed even though his admission of dishonesty was paired with a plea for leniency, showing how the SDT ranked the conduct against his personal circumstances. The financial impact is concrete too: £22,000 in costs.

The case’s lasting significance lies in the pattern the tribunal identified. The initial lie was small — a week off work — and the firm granted it. What followed was escalation: a hospital admission, surgery, chemotherapy, a decision to stop treatment, and finally a forged report undone by inconsistent spellings, an incorrect licence number and formatting errors. The tribunal’s finding that the dishonesty’s “seriousness increased with each instance” captures that trajectory.

The outcome also shows how tribunals treat mental-health mitigation. Panchamiya’s difficulties were accepted as genuine — examined “with care”, with sympathy — yet the tribunal was satisfied he knew his conduct was dishonest: difficulties that are real are not therefore “exceptional”. For a profession built on integrity, that distinction proved decisive.