A law firm owner found to have bullied or harassed five separate employees – including sexually harassing one – has been allowed to stay in practice.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found more than 40 allegations of misconduct proved against John Kishin Navani, a solicitor and owner of London firm Criminal Defence Solicitors.
The tribunal heard Navani shouted abusive words at junior staff, made humiliating comments about sensitive issues and demanded to know why they had not bought him treats. At one point he insisted that a female colleague come back to his flat and asked to hug and kiss her while she reported feeling trapped and fearful.
The tribunal said there had been a ‘repeated pattern’ of inappropriate behaviour over a three-year period featuring an abuse of power and coercion, compounded by a ‘substantial imbalance’ of authority. He took undue advantage of at least one complainant who was considered to be vulnerable.
But it was found by the panel of one female chair and two male members that Navani could continue to practice and should receive a one-year suspension which would be suspended for two years.
Such a sanction would, the tribunal ruled, adequately protect the public and uphold professional standards, given the absence of further issues since 2019. Navani was also restricted from participating in recruitment interviews or disciplinary investigations within any solicitors’ firm to address the ‘underlying concerns’ raised by the proven allegations.
Five former colleagues gave oral evidence to the tribunal and detailed the bullying and harassment they experienced.
One said Navani’s mood fluctuated between ‘affable and aggressive’. When she had a hospital appointment, he pressed her to disclose the reason and said he would not let her leave without an explanation. When she said it related to fertility issues, he remarked that ‘at least she would not need fertility leave’ which she found deeply hurtful. She also said that Navani used threats of blacklisting to control staff which made her stay with the legal aid firm longer than she wished.
The second complainant described returning from her grandfather’s funeral and Navani saying: ‘you don’t look sad, did you bring back any treats?’ He was also found to have threatened not to sign off her pupillage for no good reason.
A third employee said Navani commented on her eczema, saying she looked ‘disgusting’ and asking if it was ‘catchy’. She reported that he said people from certain universities were ‘wasters and idiots’. While on the phone to one distressed client, she said Navani shouted at her to end the call, saying words to the effect that he came first.
A fourth complainant recalled that Navani shouted she was a ‘liar’ and a ‘bitch’ during a disciplinary meeting, after which she left in tears and resigned immediately. She also described how he made racially inappropriate remarks and asked why she had not brought back treats from visiting ill grandparents.
The fifth complainant said Navani asked her to make a list of five colleagues she would fire and steered the conversation towards criticising them. He made sexist remarks and comments about a staff member’s ethnicity, weight and career prospects, and regularly asked personal questions during her internship in public spaces. On one occasion he suggested she ‘cover up her assets’ and repeatedly suggested that she meet him after work. When she mentioned her discomfort at this, Navani had said: ‘You just think you wouldn’t be able to keep your hands off me.’
This same complainant claimed she had been offered a lift home by Navani after the firm’s Christmas party in 2018 but he instead drove her to his flat, despite repeated requests not to (this element of her allegations was found not proved by the tribunal). One inside the flat, he dimmed the lights, adjusted the sofa to recline and suggest she lie down. After asking to kiss her, she left the flat but later sent a text message intended to placate him because she feared losing her job.
Several complaints said that he would click his fingers or shout ‘oi’ across the room to get someone’s attention.
Navani, who qualified as a solicitor in 1996, denied all wrongdoing. The tribunal found his evidence to lack credibility, with broad denials often accompanied by statements such as ‘I would never say that’ or ‘I do not recall’ and explanations deemed to be ‘inconsistent, contrived and lacking in substance’. All five of the complainants were found to be truthful and honest witnesses who gave convincing, accurate and credible evidence.
In mitigation, Navani said his conduct was careless, spontaneous, and insensitive rather than premeditated or planned. None of the allegations occurred since 2019 and he expressed genuine remorse, recognising that his instance stance that the women had fabricated their allegations was ‘misplaced’.
The tribunal said it considered a strike-off but ruled that ‘in light of all of the mitigating factors and the absence of dishonesty or misuse of client funds, this would be disproportionate’.
The SRA applied for around £164,000 costs. The tribunal agreed that Navani should pay costs but said they should be subject to detailed assessment.
