Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief reprimand solicitor judges

SRA: Solicitors failed to disclose investigations to judicial authorities

Two solicitor judges who failed to inform the judicial authorities that they had been investigated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) have been reprimanded by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice.

Maneer Ghani, who sits as a magistrate in Merseyside, was fined £5,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal last November for breaking the personal injury referral fee ban by paying an unlicensed claims management company over £200,000 in only six months.

The tribunal found that Mr Ghani “ought to have known” that he was breaking the rules.

His failure “to promptly notify his bench chairman” that he was subject to an investigation was then probed by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO).

A statement said: “In reaching their decision, the Lord Chancellor and Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb DBE on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice took into consideration that Mr Ghani accepted full responsibility for his actions and that no findings of dishonesty were made against him.”

Meanwhile, Judge Viney Jung, a fee-paid judge of the First-tier Tribunal health, education and social care chamber, was formally rebuked by the SRA for failing to report improper conduct by a former employee at her firm of solicitors, but failed to tell her chamber president.

In a regulatory settlement agreement published in February 2018, the SRA said the office manager at Ms Jung’s west London firm Jung Law made 74 improper payments totalling £201,550 from its client account to himself over a period of 14 months.

He also accepted eight payments of client money on account of costs which, instead of putting into the firm’s client account, he took for himself.

Ms Jung dismissed him after his actions were discovered, and the office manager’s family repaid the money. Ms Jung did not report the matter to the SRA, her insurer or the police.

The JCIO said: “The Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice found that Judge Jung’s actions amounted to misconduct and have issued her with a reprimand.

“In reaching this decision, they took into consideration mitigation offered by the Judge and that the SRA had not made any findings of dishonesty against her.”

Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Our latest special report, produced in association with Temple Legal Protection, looks at the role of after-the-event (ATE) insurance in commercial litigation post-LASPO. We are at a time when insurers, solicitors, clients and litigation funders work ever more closely to create funding packages that work for all of them, with conditional fee and even damages-based agreements now part of many law firms’ armoury.


31 March 2020

How two firms use technology to minimise human error

Human error is a leading cause of reported data breaches in the legal industry, and mistakes like sending an email to the wrong person can have serious consequences under data privacy laws.

Read More

Loading animation