You have 0 free articles left this month.
Big Law

3 drink-driving convictions, cocaine charge: Solicitor fined for hiding offences from tribunal

A solicitor with three drink-driving convictions, including one involving cocaine, has avoided suspension and been fined after a disciplinary tribunal found he failed to report his offences for almost seven years.

May 27, 2026 By Grace Robbie
Share this article on:
expand image

A UK solicitor has avoided suspension and been hit with a £15,000 (equivalent to around $28,000) fine after failing to disclose a string of criminal convictions to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).

Vipul Kapoor appeared before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) in early April, where he admitted to allegations brought by the regulator, acknowledging that he had failed over a four-year period to disclose six criminal convictions as required.

 
 

The criminal convictions span three separate matters, beginning with a drink-driving offence in 2017 and followed by a repeat offence in 2019.

In 2020, the conduct escalated further when he was caught driving under the influence while disqualified, behind the wheel of an uninsured vehicle, and in possession of cocaine.

Following the three convictions, the regulator alleged that Kapoor failed to report any of the offences in a timely manner, despite strict professional obligations requiring solicitors to disclose such matters without delay.

Alongside the driving convictions, Kapoor also fell foul of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 in 2023 after being found intoxicated and behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place.

The court heard from a forensic psychiatrist that during this period, Kapoor had become “physically and psychologically dependent on alcohol”.

The psychiatrist attributed this to a combination of “serious personal and occupational pressures,” including the breakdown of Kapoor’s first marriage, the demands of a promotion, his mother’s serious illness, and the deaths of both of his grandfathers.

When speaking to the tribunal, Kapoor described alcohol as “both a release and a form of self-medication”, linking his reliance on it to the pressures of a three-hour daily commute and punishing working hours that often ran from 7:00am until 10:00pm.

As a result, Kapoor told the tribunal he was often in a “profound fog each morning”, which he said left him significantly impaired and forced him to work increasingly long hours simply to keep up with his responsibilities.

Since the most recent incident involving intoxication and disorderly behaviour, he has abstained from alcohol and has been actively attending Alcoholics Anonymous.

When questioned about the delay in reporting his convictions to the SRA, Kapoor stated that he only became aware of his duty to self-report while attending a drink-driving rehabilitation course in April 2023.

While the tribunal said it was “broadly prepared to accept that explanation”, it also highlighted aggravating features in the failure to report, noting that Kapoor “should have known” of his obligations and did not disclose the convictions until seven months after becoming aware of the requirement to do so.

SDT argued that Kapoor’s conduct demonstrated a “persistent disregard for the law, repeated failures to uphold public trust and confidence in the progression, and a lack of integrity incompatible with continued unregulated practice”.

The regulator also pointed to his prolonged non-disclosure, which it said extended across “multiple employers and multiple practising certificates”, arguing that the delay amounted to a serious failure to engage with the SRA in an “open, timely, and co-operative manner.”

While the tribunal acknowledged that suspension would have been “an entirely defensible outcome”, it ultimately determined that a fine was appropriate, having personally assessed Kapoor and been satisfied as to the sincerity of his recovery and remorse.

The tribunal emphasised that it had adopted “a compassionate approach” in determining the appropriate sanction for Kapoor.

In addition to the £15,000 fine (approximately $28,000), the tribunal also ordered him to pay £10,688 in costs (around $20,000) arising from the application and inquiry.

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make Lawyers Weekly a preferred news source on Google.
Click here to add Lawyers Weekly as a preferred news source.