Ex-Ashurst Madrid partner given SRA ban over inappropriate conduct

Published:
September 12, 2025 3:55 PM
Need to know

The SDT has ruled it has jurisdiction over Spanish-qualified former Ashurst partner Manuel Lopez-Martinez, despite his claim that only the Madrid bar could restrict his conduct as a lawyer.

The tribunal imposed a section 43 order restricting him from working at SRA-regulated firms, after it found he made unwanted sexual advances towards former colleagues.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has ruled it has the authority to sanction a former Ashurst regulatory partner in Madrid over allegations of inappropriate behaviour, rejecting his argument that the matter was for Spanish regulators.

Advertisement

Background

In a judgment published on Wednesday (10 September), the SDT examined allegations reported to the SRA that, while a registered foreign lawyer, Manuel Lopez-Martinez made unwanted sexual advances towards two colleagues between 2018 and 2021. Although not all allegations were upheld, the SDT found some of the complaints from two female colleagues proved.

Under section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974 - which is used for non-solicitors - the tribunal said Lopez-Martinez’s behaviour made it "undesirable" for him to work in legal practice without the SRA's consent, restricting him from being employed by any SRA-regulated firm.

Lopez-Martinez, who trained at Ashurst and rose to become partner and head of regulatory at its Madrid office, argued that he was not a solicitor under English law and that the alleged misconduct took place entirely in Madrid, meaning only the Madrid Bar Association had jurisdiction over him.

Outcome

The tribunal rejected his claim, holding that Ashurst is regulated by the SRA and its Madrid operation is "clearly a branch office", so Lopez-Martinez - who was both employed and remunerated by the firm - falls within the scope of section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974.

Lopez-Martinez left Ashurst following the firm's investigation and now works for a Spanish law firm. He was ordered to pay £61,500 in costs.

Advertisement