4 reviews and information for Iris Law LLP, Gateshead

Home > UK Solicitor > Gateshead > Iris Law LLP

Mobile phone icon01914770055Email iconEmail
Laptop iconWebsite

Accreditations

The Law Society Accredited - Immigration and AsylumThe Law Society Accredited - Immigration and AsylumThe Law Society Accredited - Immigration and AsylumThe Law Society Accredited - Immigration Law AdvancedSRASRAThe Law Society Accredited - Conveyancing Quality

How to find us

1st Floor Kent House, Church Street, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, NE8 2AT

Other branches


Languages spoken English, Farsi (Persian), French 
Size of firm 5 solicitors


Are you this solicitor?    
Contact us to take control of your listing or to request any edits to your information

All content on solicitor.info is viewed and used at your own risk and we do not warrant the accuracy or reliability of any of the information.


Reviews

Add review

Summary

5 stars   0
4 stars   0
3 stars   0
2 stars   0
1 stars   0

Legal services at this branch

  • Administrative and public law
  • Advocacy
  • Children
  • Company and commercial
  • Conveyancing - residential
  • Employment
  • European Community law
  • Family - general
  • Human rights
  • Immigration - asylum
  • Immigration - general
  • Immigration - nationality and citizenship
  • Landlord and tenant - residential
  • Litigation - general
  • Private client - Probate
  • Private client - Wills


Add review

Filter Reviews

 


Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

08/09/17

Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/546591.article?Decision=2017-09-08

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Reasons/basis

Agreed outcome

1.1. Mahdad Soltani, solicitor, agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)



(a) he is rebuked

(b) he is fined ?1000

(c) to the publication of this agreement

(d) he will pay the costs of the investigation of ?300



Summary of Facts

2.1. On 10 January 2017 Mr Soltani was convicted of driving with excess alcohol.

2.2. The sentence was



(a) disqualification from driving for 24 months

(b) a fine of ?1,786



2.3. Mr Soltani was also ordered to pay



(a) costs of ?85

(b) a victim surcharge of ?170



Admissions

3.1. Mr Soltani admits and the SRA accepts that by virtue of his conviction on 10 January 2017 for driving with excess alcohol he has failed to uphold the rule of law in breach of Principle 1 of the SRA Principles 2011.

Why the agreed outcome is appropriate

4.1. The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate because the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that



(a) the conduct was deliberate or reckless;

(b) the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest

(c) the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.



4.2. In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Soltani and the following mitigation which he has put forward



(a) he co-operated with the police. He provided a breath sample, accepted responsibility for the offence and pleaded guilty.

(b) He has enrolled on a drink driving awareness course offered by the court.

(c) he informed both the SRA and his firm promptly on the day he was charged.



4.3. The amount of the fine takes into account all relevant circumstances, including those set out in Appendix 1 to the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011.

4.4. The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement

5.1. Mr Soltani agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

5.2 If Mr Soltani acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be considered further by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary outcome or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

Costs

6.1. Mr Soltani agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?300. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

Respond   Report abuse

Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

08/09/17

Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/546591.article?Decision=2017-09-08

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Reasons/basis
Agreed outcome
1.1. Mahdad Soltani, solicitor, agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)

(a) he is rebuked
(b) he is fined ?1000
(c) to the publication of this agreement
(d) he will pay the costs of the investigation of ?300
Summary of Facts
2.1. On 10 January 2017 Mr Soltani was convicted of driving with excess alcohol.

2.2. The sentence was

(a) disqualification from driving for 24 months
(b) a fine of ?1,786
2.3. Mr Soltani was also ordered to pay

(a) costs of ?85
(b) a victim surcharge of ?170
Admissions
3.1. Mr Soltani admits and the SRA accepts that by virtue of his conviction on 10 January 2017 for driving with excess alcohol he has failed to uphold the rule of law in breach of Principle 1 of the SRA Principles 2011.

Why the agreed outcome is appropriate
4.1. The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate because the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that

(a) the conduct was deliberate or reckless;
(b) the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest
(c) the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.
4.2. In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Soltani and the following mitigation which he has put forward

(a) he co-operated with the police. He provided a breath sample, accepted responsibility for the offence and pleaded guilty.
(b) He has enrolled on a drink driving awareness course offered by the court.
(c) he informed both the SRA and his firm promptly on the day he was charged.
4.3. The amount of the fine takes into account all relevant circumstances, including those set out in Appendix 1 to the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011.

4.4. The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement
5.1. Mr Soltani agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

5.2 If Mr Soltani acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be considered further by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary outcome or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

Costs
6.1. Mr Soltani agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?300. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 1   Thumbs down 0

Respond   Report abuse

Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

09/03/16

Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/041915.article?Decision=2016-04-13

Outcome: PC/registration free of conditions
This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details
Miss Clare Margaret McNeill is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

Miss McNeill's practising certificate for 2015/2016 has been issued free from conditions.

Reasons/basis
The SRA is satisfied that none of the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 or the regulatory objectives contained in the Legal Services Act 2007 and the principles governing regulatory activities in section 28 of that Act make it necessary in the interests of the public to impose any practising certificate condition.

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

Respond   Report abuse

Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

09/03/16

Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/041915.article?Decision=2016-04-13

Outcome: PC/registration free of conditions
Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details



Miss Clare Margaret McNeill is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011.

Miss McNeill's practising certificate for 2015/2016 has been issued free from conditions.



Reasons/basis

The SRA is satisfied that none of the purposes set out in Regulation 7 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011 or the regulatory objectives contained in the Legal Services Act 2007 and the principles governing regulatory activities in section 28 of that Act make it necessary in the interests of the public to impose any practising certificate condition.

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

Respond   Report abuse

Subscribe to updates

Complete the form below to be notified of new reviews or responses added for this solicitor.


terms of use

Enter this code » Verify

Related links

About us
Legal info
For Solicitors
FAQ
22256 solicitor reviews

3,663,416 page views