SDT: Insufficient evidence
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has refused to lift restrictions on the practising certificate (PC) of a solicitor which he failed to show were “punitive in effect”.
The tribunal said Kulwant Singh Manak had produced “insufficient evidence” to support his application to lift conditions preventing him from being an owner or manager of a law firm, a compliance officer, or a sole practitioner.
Mr Manak was suspended for two years in January 2018, and when that ended six conditions were imposed on his PC.
Three of them were removed by the High Court [1] that summer, when Mr Manak unsuccessfully appealed against his suspension. These prevented him from holding client money, being a signatory on client accounts or working as a solicitor other than in employment approved by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Mr Manak argued that the remaining three conditions were “punitive in effect and had caused him difficulties in obtaining work”.
However, neither a document concerning a request for further confirmation from the Land Registry nor correspondence relating to a will, which was evidence of a challenge based on Mr Manak’s regulatory history, established that he had “lost work as a result of the restrictions”, the SDT found.
A third document, relating to Mr Manak’s High Court appeal, formed part of his publicly available disciplinary record “irrespective of whether the practising restrictions remained in force”.
The SDT was “not satisfied that the rejection of the proposed instructions had resulted specifically from the continuing restrictions” or that they were “punitive in effect”.
The accusations against Mr Manak have a long history, going back to 2012, when the SDT brought proceedings against three partners, including Mr Manak, and two solicitors at Coventry firm Heer Manak.
Mr Manak, who qualified in 1993, was the manager, owner and COLP of Heer Manak. The law firm closed in 2013 after failing to secure indemnity insurance.
He was suspended after the SDT found, among other things, that he had acted recklessly and without integrity by allowing client account to operate in breach of the rules, obtained a loan from a client without insisting that they take independent legal advice, and failed to supervise staff properly.
Mr Manak has practised with the three remaining conditions on his PC since 2020, telling the SDT he was working as a consultant solicitor at Coventry firm Maya & Co Solicitors, undertaking mainly commercial lease, wills, and probate work.
However, the SDT said he not provided any documentary evidence “confirming his position with the firm, nor any supporting evidence from the principal, another solicitor or employee of the firm, or a client”.
On professional development and rehabilitation, Mr Manak provided certificates relating to three courses completed in 2024 but these provided “limited information about the content of the courses or the learning derived from them”.
The tribunal was not satisfied that the certificates, backed by oral submissions, “demonstrated that the concerns arising from the original misconduct had been adequately addressed”.
The character reference provided by Mr Manak “was supportive of the applicant as a professional” but “general in its terms and provided little specific evidence of rehabilitation”.
The tribunal rejected his application to remove the three remaining conditions on his PC and ordered him to pay costs of £6,670.