Harjit Singh Kang

  • Application 11651-2017
  • Admitted 1993
  • Hearing 22 August 2017
  • Reasons 20 September 2017

The SDT granted the applicant’s application for the determination of the indefinite suspension imposed on him 16 February 2012. It further ordered that he should be subject to the following conditions: that he might not (i) practise as a sole practitioner or sole manager or sole owner of an authorised or recognised body; (ii) be a partner or member of a limited liability partnership, legal disciplinary practice or alternative business structure or other authorised or recognised body; (iii) be a compliance officer for legal practice or a compliance officer for finance and administration; (iv) hold client money; (v) be a signatory on any client account; (vi) work as a solicitor other than in employment approved by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, with liberty to either party to apply to vary those conditions.

The applicant had been suspended for more than five years, and had continued to work within the profession adhering to the stringent conditions imposed by the respondent. He had worked in approved employment for much of the period of suspension for very modest remuneration. He had an excellent reference from his current employer and a written assurance that he would be offered employment as an assistant solicitor if his application was successful.

He had submitted testimony including from members of the bar who had worked with him in complex cases and from other solicitors who had referred clients to him or had experience of working with him.

Having regard to the applicant’s history and the quality of his work attested to by fellow professionals, the public would not harbour concerns about the propriety of his returning to practice. No objections had been received to the application in response to the advertisements.

In the light of all the relevant factors in the case, it was appropriate to determine the indefinite suspension because there was evidence of changed circumstances sufficient to justify the application. The applicant was ordered to pay costs of £2,704.