Oliver Arthur D'Sa
Solicitor
128425

Decision - Agreement

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement

Outcome date: 12 February 2026

Published date: 17 February 2026

Firm details

Firm or organisation at date of publication and at time of matters giving rise to outcome

Name: Oliver D’Sa

Address(es): Crescent Cottages 75-81 King Street LEICESTER LE1 6RP

Firm ID: 261417

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by agreement.

Decision details

1. Agreed outcome

1. Oliver Arthur D'Sa (Mr D'Sa), a solicitor and director of Oliver D'Sa (the Firm), agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

1. he is fined £3800,
2. to the publication of this agreement
3. he will pay the costs of the investigation of £600.

2. Summary of Facts

Mr D'Sa had represented KI since 2019. He was aware from the outset of KI's diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

In March 2020, KI instructed Mr D'Sa to represent him in relation to criminal charges connected to nine charges of theft, five charges of robbery, four counts of having an offensive weapon and one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

On 26 April 2020, at an online hearing, KI pleaded guilty to the charges. Mr D'Sa was not present and had arranged for counsel to represent KI.

On 6 June 2020, Mr D'Sa received the report he had commissioned from Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist Dr Thirumalai. Dr Thirumalai agreed with the diagnosis of ASD. He found KI presented with high levels of anxiety, suicidal ideation and features of learning disability.

On 26 June 2020, Mr D'Sa received the report he had commissioned from Chartered Psychologist Dr Abdelnoor. Dr Abdelnoor concluded that he did not believe KI had the capacity to make a decision for himself to plead guilty or not guilty, or be able to form instructions for his solicitors, and would struggle to follow court proceedings.

Mr D'Sa put forward the findings by way of mitigation, with the intention that KI's sentencing would take account of the findings in the reports. Mr D'Sa did not take steps to ask the court to set aside KI's plea.

In October 2022, KI's new solicitors appealed against his 2020 convictions on the basis that (1) at the time he entered his pleas, KI had not been fit to plead; and (2) his legal representatives had failed in their representation of him. On 24 March 2024, the appeal succeeded. The court found at paragraph 56 that, ‘…there was a failure by [KI's] lawyers to identify and act effectively in the light of their client's difficulties…

3. Admissions Mr D'Sa admits breaching the following rules which the SRA accepts:

1. SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors 2019 3.2 - You ensure that the service you provide to clients is competent and delivered in a timely manner. 
2. SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors 2019 3.4 - You consider and take account of your client's attributes, needs and circumstances.
3. SRA Principles 2019 P2 - you act to uphold public trust and confidence in the solicitor's profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons.
4. SRA Principles 2019 P7 – you act in the best interests of each client.

4. Why a fine is an appropriate outcome

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.

When considering the appropriate sanctions and controls in this matter, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr D'Sa and the following mitigation which he has put forward:

1. He did not disregard his professional obligations, and acted openly and honestly throughout the events leading to the report and throughout this investigation.
2. He has reflected on the events and his actions at the time. He has identified points where things could have gone differently and has altered his approach to subsequent clients and cases.
3. He had no intention to cause harm. His focus on ensuring all possible mitigation was identified and put forward on behalf of his client, sadly led to him overlooking the information about KI's needs and capacity set out in the experts' reports.
4. He has identified a range of training for himself and his staff, to improve their understanding of best practice in representing clients with learning and mental health difficulties/disorders.

3. The SRA considers that a fine is the appropriate outcome because:

1. There was serious harm to KI, who had a criminal conviction for four years.
2. Mr D'Sa knew from the outset that KI was a vulnerable individual. From the end of June 2020, Mr D'Sa should have taken in to account the information in the experts' reports about KI's functioning. These made it plain that KI was more likely than other individuals to be dependent on information and advice presented to him by his solicitor. Mr D'Sa should have taken the information about this particular client's vulnerability in to account when formulating his advice, and in the way he communicated information and advice to KI.
3. Mr D'Sa is an experienced practitioner, admitted to the Roll in 1984. There is no relevant regulatory history or report of similar conduct. This represents an isolated event in Mr D'Sa's career.

A fine is appropriate to maintain professional standards and uphold public confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons because the conduct caused serious harm. It was under the direct control of Mr D'Sa. It continued between the end of June 2020 and the sentencing of KI in July 2021. However, it represents an isolated case, set against a long career with no similar conduct concerns. Public protection does not require suspension or striking-off. A financial penalty therefore meets the requirements of rule 4.1 of the Regulatory and Disciplinary Procedure Rules.

5. Amount of the fine

The amount of the fine has been calculated in line with the SRA's published guidance on its approach to setting an appropriate financial penalty (the Guidance).

Having regard to the Guidance, the SRA and Mr D'Sa agree that the nature of the misconduct was less serious because it did not arise as a result of gross negligence or recklessness, it did not continue after it was known to be improper, and it did not form part of a pattern of conduct. The Guidance gives this type of misconduct a score of one.

The SRA considers that the impact of the misconduct was high because it was under the direct control of Mr D'Sa and had a significant impact on the client. It was only rectified by the actions of KI's new solicitors. The Guidance gives this level of impact a score of six.

The nature and impact scores add up to seven. The Guidance indicates a broad penalty bracket of between 16% and 49% of an individual's gross annual income is appropriate.

In deciding the level of fine within this bracket, the SRA has considered the mitigation at paragraph 4.2 above which Mr D'Sa has put forward, alongside the aggravating factors at paragraph 4.3.

The conduct had serious consequences for KI, but the investigation has found no evidence of dishonesty or disregard of his professional obligations by Mr D'Sa. The events represent an isolated report in Mr D'Sa's professional career. The SRA considers a basic penalty towards the middle of the bracket to be appropriate.

Based on the evidence Mr D'Sa has provided of his gross annual income for the most recent tax year, this results in a basic penalty of £5440.

The SRA considers that the basic penalty should be reduced to £3800. This reduction reflects Mr D'Sa's co-operation throughout the investigation, his self-reflection and the changes in practice Mr D'Sa has put in place to improve his own and his staff's representation of vulnerable individuals throughout the period of representation.

Mr D'Sa does not appear to have made any financial gain or received any other benefit as a result of his conduct. Therefore, no adjustment is necessary to remove this and the amount of the fine is £3800.

6. Publication

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

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

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

If Mr D'Sa 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.

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.

8. Costs

Mr D'sa agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of £600. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.