SRA Bars Apprentice Who Lied to Firm About Arrest

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has barred a solicitor apprentice from working in law firms without its prior permission, after he falsely told his employer he was absent due to illness when he had in fact been arrested.

The regulator imposed a section 43 order on Owen Goodhand, a former apprentice solicitor at Kent firm Martin Tolhurst Partnership. The SRA found that the serious and dishonest nature of his conduct meant it was "undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice" without the regulator's prior approval. Goodhand was also ordered to pay £600 towards the SRA's costs.

What happened at the firm?

Goodhand worked as an apprentice solicitor at Martin Tolhurst Partnership from September 2023 until his dismissal in June 2025. On 28 March 2025, police arrested him following an investigation and later released him on bail.

On 1 April, according to the SRA's decision notice, Goodhand emailed the firm's HR manager and his supervisor. He claimed he had been absent on the day of his arrest due to illness.

The deception deepened later that month. At a meeting with his supervisor, Goodhand was asked directly whether he was aware of any personal conduct issues that could constitute a breach of the SRA's code of conduct, including "being arrested, charged or convicted on any criminal matter". He answered "no", despite having been arrested weeks earlier.

How did the conduct come to light?

Goodhand eventually disclosed the arrest himself. On 8 May, at a meeting with the firm's compliance officer, he admitted the arrest and conceded that he had been dishonest when questioned by his supervisor.

The firm dismissed him the following month, in June 2025.

Kent Police later confirmed that the criminal investigation into Goodhand had been closed with no further action taken. The dishonesty, not the underlying allegation, drove the regulatory outcome.

What does the ruling change for practitioners?

The decision reinforces a point practitioners know well but trainees and apprentices sometimes miss. Disclosure obligations bite regardless of whether an arrest leads to charges or a conviction. The SRA's code asks specifically about being "arrested, charged or convicted on any criminal matter", and a false answer to that question is treated as independent misconduct.

Section 43 orders carry real practical weight. Goodhand cannot work for any authorised legal practice — firm, in-house team or otherwise — without SRA permission. For compliance officers and supervising solicitors, the case is a reminder to ask conduct questions directly and in documented settings. Had the supervisor's question not been posed in a formal meeting, the dishonesty might have surfaced far later.

The £600 costs order also signals that these matters proceed on a summary basis with modest but real financial consequences. The takeaway is simple: the cover-up, not the arrest, ended this apprentice's legal career for now.