Bandla v. Solicitors Regulation Authority
UK · May 13, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- UK
- Record ID
- bandla-v-solicitors-regulation-authority-2025-05-13
- Observed outcome
- Application for extension of time refused; appeal struck out as abuse of process; indemnity costs of £24,727.20 ordered; permission to appeal denied.
- Known monetary consequence
- £24,727
Why this matter warrants attention
The court struck out the appeal as an abuse of process because the appellant, a former solicitor, submitted and maintained approximately 27 fabricated case law citations in his formal filings. The appellant admitted he had not verified the existence of these authorities, which he claimed to have sourced via Google searches, and failed to withdraw them after the respondent identified the errors.
The court found Bandla’s conduct deeply troubling, noting his previous experience as a solicitor and his professed commitment to legal standards. It held that the deliberate or grossly negligent inclusion of fake case law—especially in an attempt to challenge a disciplinary disbarment—was an abuse requiring strong institutional response
Former solicitors filing pro se still face indemnity costs when fake authorities are maintained after challenge.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Bar Referral
- Administrative
- Trial
- AI attribution
- Alleged
- Recorded tool
- Google Search (Allegedly)
- Known monetary consequence
- £24,727
- Procedural posture
- Application for extension of time to appeal a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) decision; appeal struck out as an abuse of process by the High Court of Justice (Administrative Court).
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The appellant claimed he used Google search to find case law.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to Google Search (Allegedly) output as to any other research input.