Dylan Patel
Employee
7270194

Decision - Employee-related decision

Outcome: Control of non-qualified staff (Section 43 / Section 99 order)

Outcome date: 4 August 2025

Published date: 17 December 2025

Firm details

Firm or organisation at time of matters giving rise to outcome

Name: Stephenson Harwood LLP

Address(es): 1 Finsbury Circus, London, EC2M 7SH

Firm ID: 567651

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details

Order for Publication

Mr Dylan Patel, whose last known address was in Stanmore, London Borough of Harrow. A person who is or was involved in a legal practice but is not a solicitor.

Summary of decision

The SRA has put restrictions on where and how Mr Patel can work in an SRA regulated firm. It was found that: Mr Patel, who is not a solicitor, was involved in a legal practice and has occasioned or been a party to an act or default which involved such conduct on his part that it is undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice in any of the ways described in the order below.

The facts of the case

Mr Patel is a non-authorised person. At the time of the misconduct, he was employed as a compliance officer at Stephenson Harwood LLP (the firm). The firm is a recognised body. Mr Patel’s employment was terminated in December 2024 for gross misconduct.

It was found that between 29 November 2024 and 5 December 2024, he repeatedly told the firm that he was working in the office on 29 November 2024 when he was working from home.

Mr Patel was required by the firm to work from the office on 29 November 2024. He did not however attend the office and sought to deter a senior colleague from trying to locate him after telling her that he was on the first floor, by suggesting that he was too busy to meet with her. He continued his attempt to mislead colleagues in investigatory meetings on 3 and 5 December 2024, insisting that he was present in the office on the date in question, that he had been let into the building by a security guard as he had forgotten his pass, providing a description of the security guard who allegedly granted him access to the building, detailed timings of his arrival and departure from the office, details of where he had been sitting throughout the day and confirming that he had connected to the firm's WiFi from his desk. Mr Patel’s conduct was found to be dishonest.

Decision on outcome

An order pursuant to section 43(2) of the Solicitors Act 1974 was imposed as Mr Patel's conduct meant that it was undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice without the SRA's prior approval. The order, pursuant to section 43, was made to take effect 28 days from the date of the letter or email notifying Mr Patel of this decision. Mr Patel was also ordered to pay a proportion of the SRA's costs of £600.

What our Section 43 order means

1. no solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with his/her practice as a solicitor;
2. no employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the solicitor's practice;
3. no recognised body shall employ or remunerate him;
4. no manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the business of that body;
5. no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to be a manager of the body; and
6. no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to have an interest in the body except in accordance with the SRA's prior written permission