Solicitors rebuked for frying pan attack and non-disclosure agreement

Solicitor’s weapon of choice

A solicitor who hit a person around the head with a frying pan, and another who tried to use a settlement agreement to prevent disclosures to HMRC, have been rebuked.

According to a notice published this week by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), Kamaljit Singh Bains was on holiday last year in Bangor, Wales when “he became involved in an argument with a member of the public and struck them around the head with a frying pan”.

He was arrested at the scene, but the member of the public did not want to support a criminal prosecution for assault.

Mr Bains was instead charged under section 4A(1) and (5) of the Public Order Act 1986 – causing intentional harassment, alarm or distress.

He pleaded guilty and was convicted at Caernarfon Magistrates’ Court, which fined him £1,760 and imposed a victim surcharge of £176 and costs of £85.

He notified the SRA of his conviction and admitted that he had failed to behave in way that upheld public trust and confidence in the profession.

In mitigation, Mr Bains said the member of the public did not sustain an injury, it was an isolated incident, he pleaded guilty and has paid the fine, and co-operated with the SRA’s investigation.

The regulator said a rebuke was appropriate because “the conduct was reckless as to the potential risk of harm, Mr Bains had direct responsibility for his conduct, and it creates a credible deterrent to Mr Bains and others”.

Separately, Justin Roy Emerson, a partner at Chelmsford firm Gepp & Sons, has been rebuked after drafting a client settlement agreement that attempted to prevent an individual and a company from making disclosures to HM Revenue & Customs.

This also failed to uphold trust and confidence and also breached paragraph 7.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct, which requires solicitors not to attempt to prevent anyone from providing information to the SRA or any other body exercising regulatory, supervisory, investigatory or prosecutory functions in the public interest.

The misuse of non-disclosure agreements has been an issue of intense scrutiny in recent times.

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Email address will not be published.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.


A new route to practice rights for chartered legal executives

Following approval from the Legal Services Board in May 2022, CILEx Regulation has launched an alternative route for chartered legal executives to obtain independent practice rights.

NFTs, the courts and the role of injunctions

In May, news broke that a non-fungible token was the subject of a successful injunction made by the Singapore High Court. The NFT in question is part of the very valuable Bored Ape Yacht Club series.

Matthew Pascall

Low-value commercial cases – an achievable challenge for ATE insurers

There are many good claims brought for damages that are likely to be significantly less than twice the cost of bringing the claim. These cases present a real challenge for insurers.

Loading animation