Tejinder Mahil
Solicitor
17045

Decision - Sanction

Outcome: Rebuke

Outcome date: 18 May 2026

Published date: 21 May 2026

Firm details

No detail provided:

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details

1. Agreed outcome was reached by SRA decision

1.1 Tejinder Mahil (Mr Mahil), a solicitor and former employee of Gunnercooke LLP (the Firm), agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

1. he is rebuked
2. to the publication of this agreement
3. he will pay the costs of the investigation of £300.

2. Summary of Facts

2.1 On 18 March 2022, Mr Mahil was arrested after the vehicle he had been driving collided with a parked unattended vehicle. Mr Mahil provided a specimen of blood at the police station. The analysis presented a reading of 281 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, 3.5 times over the legal alcohol limit.

2.2 Mr Mahil was subsequently charged with driving a motor vehicle after having consumed a level of alcohol in excess of the prescribed limit.

2.3 On 13 September 2022 Mr Mahil pleaded guilty at Chelmsford Magistrates' Court of driving while over the legal alcohol limit and received the following sentence:

• disqualified from driving for 36-months, to be reduced by 36 weeks on completion of a driving course approved by the Secretary of State before 4 November 2024.
• a fine of £200
• a community order requiring 200 hours of unpaid work.
• a surcharge to fund victim services of £95.
• costs to the crown Prosecution Service of £105.

Mr Mahil failed to report this conviction to the SRA promptly; reporting the matter to the SRA on 29 July 2025, almost 3 years after the conviction itself. When asked to explain the delay, Mr Mahil stated that he had mistakenly believed a drink driving conviction did not require reporting because it did not involve dishonesty or a custodial sentence. He said this was a genuine misunderstanding. He acknowledged that, as an experienced solicitor, he should have been aware of this obligation.

3. Admissions

3.1 Mr Mahil makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:

1. Being convicted of driving a motor vehicle while over the legal alcohol limit, he breached Principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019, which says:

   'You act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons.'

2. Failing to report the conviction of 13 September 2022 to the SRA until 29 July 2025, he breached Paragraph 7.6(a) of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs, which says:

   'You must notify the SRA promptly if you are subject to any criminal charge, conviction or caution, subject to the Rehabilitation Act 1974. that you must notify the SRA promptly if you are subject to any criminal charge, conviction or caution, subject to the Rehabilitation Act 1974.'

4. Why a written rebuke is an appropriate outcome

4.1 The SRA's Enforcement Strategy sets out its approach to the use of its enforcement powers where there has been a failure to meet its standards or requirements.

4.2 When considering the appropriate sanctions and controls in this matter, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Mahil and the following mitigation:

1. That he has no previous regulatory history.
2. That he pleaded guilty and complied fully with court sanctions.
3. That he has demonstrated insight and remorse, maintained sobriety, and cooperated with the SRA investigation

4.3 The SRA considers that a written rebuke is the appropriate outcome because:

1. The offence involved a high level of intoxication (281 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, over 3.5 times the legal limit.
2. Damage was caused to a third-party vehicle as a result of the collision.
3. The delay in reporting lasted almost three years, depriving the regulator of timely oversight.
4. Mr Mahil is a solicitor with many years of experience, he states he should have been more familiar with the SRA Standards and Regulations.

5. Publication

5.1 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process. Mr Mahil agrees to the publication of this agreement.

6. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement

6.1 Mr Mahil agrees that he will not deny the admissions made in this agreement or act in any way which is inconsistent with it.

6.2 If Mr Mahil denies the admissions or 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.

6.3 Denying the admissions made or acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of principles 2 and 5 of the Principles and paragraph 7.3 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

7. Costs

7.1 Mr Mahil 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.