Amir Dar
Solicitor
593226

Decision - Sanction

Outcome: Rebuke

Outcome date: 18 May 2026

Published date: 20 May 2026

Firm details

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

Name: Goldmark Legal Services Ltd

Address(es): 242 Southfield Lane, Bradford, BD7 3LT

Firm ID: 635925

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details

1. Agreed outcome

1.1 Amir Dar ('Mr Dar'), a solicitor of Goldmark Legal Services Ltd (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 Mr Dar submitted a self-report to the SRA in November 2023, after being charged with criminal offences, with a trial set for October 2025.

2.2 Mr Dar updated the SRA in September 2025 to confirm he had pleaded guilty to a less serious offence, that being one under Section 2 Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

2.3 On 23 July 2025, Mr Dar was convicted of harassment without violence relating to an incident that took place in December 2022.

2.4 Mr Dar was sentenced to:

1. a fine of a week's wage (£775).
2. a two-year restraining order.

2.5 Mr Dar was also ordered to pay:

1. a victim surcharge.
2. costs.

3. Admissions

3.1 Mr Dar makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts: that by virtue of his conduct and conviction, he failed to act in a way that upholds the public trust and confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons, in breach of Principle 2 of the SRA Principles.

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 considered the admissions made by Mr Dar and the following mitigation:

1. he promptly reported the matter to the SRA and cooperated fully with the investigation.
2. This is an isolated incident, and he has no previous convictions.
3. He has no adverse regulatory history.
4. In the sentencing remarks, the judge accepted that Mr Dar had shown genuine remorse.

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

1. Mr Dar was directly responsible for his conduct.
2. Mr Dar's conviction related to an incident which caused distress to a third party.
3. The nature of the conviction requires a sanction to be applied in order to uphold public trust and confidence in the delivery of legal services.

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 Dar agrees to the publication of this agreement.

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

6.1 Mr Dar 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 Dar 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 Dar 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.