The Solicitors Regulation Authority is to appeal a sanction imposed on an experienced solicitor who bullied staff on multiple occasions but was allowed to remain in practice.
John Kishin Navani was handed a one-year suspension, suspended for two years following a hearing earlier this year where he repeatedly denied misconduct.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found there had been a ‘repeated pattern’ of inappropriate behaviour over a three-year period. Navani, owner of London firm Criminal Defence Solicitors, abused his power and authority over staff, including at least one who was considered to be vulnerable. In total, 43 allegations out of 50 were upheld against him.
The tribunal panel said the public would be adequately protected by Navani receiving a suspended suspension, particularly given there had been no reported issues since 2019.
Both parties are given a limited window to appeal an SDT decision and the SRA has now confirmed it will challenge this outcome in the High Court.
Jonathan Peddie, executive director of investigations, enforcement and litigation at the SRA, said the sanction failed to reflect the true nature of the misconduct and therefore did not constitute an effective deterrent. He added: ‘We brought this enforcement because we identified a repeat pattern of behaviour involving a number of victims which evidenced some of the most serious abuse of power imaginable: bullying, coercion, intimidation, abuse of the vulnerable and sexual harassment, conducted over a period of three years causing profound distress for five victims.
‘Those individuals showed great personal strength in supporting the proceedings and bringing Mr Navani’s conduct to the attention of the tribunal. The profession should be a safe working environment for all involved in it.
‘The SRA must and will challenge toxic behaviour, not just to address misconduct by individuals but also to send a message to the profession as to the consequences of not meeting the standards the public and employees fairly expect. Firms must protect their staff: we published guidance on creating a safe working environment in 2023 and would recommend all firms refresh their understanding of these expectations. While this case proves that we do take action in appropriate circumstances, we believe the SDT’s sanction is insufficiently severe.’
Staff at the firm reported that Navani complained when they did not bring him treats and made comments about their appearance, ethnicity and career prospects. One 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.
Several complainants said that he would click his fingers or shout ‘oi’ across the room to get someone’s attention.
In one case, he was found to have driven a colleague to his flat after the firm’s Christmas party, where he dimmed the lights and asked to kiss her.
Navani had said in mitigation that his conduct had been careless, spontaneous and insensitive rather than premediated or planned.
