Sweets: Solicitor was unhappy with staff who did not bring treats back from holidays
A law firm owner who bullied and harassed five junior female colleagues, including taking one to his flat after a Christmas party and asking her for a kiss, has been handed a suspended suspension.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension on John Kishin Navani, suspended for two years, along with restrictions preventing him from taking part in recruitment interviews or disciplinary investigations at any law firm over the same period.
Mr Navani, who qualified in 1996, was one of two partners at City firm Criminal Defence Solicitors and was primarily responsible for its management.
The allegations related to his conduct towards five women working in junior roles at the firm between 2016 and 2019.
The judgment noted that the Bar Standards Board removed the firm’s authorisation to offer pupillage in 2019 following the complaints. The firm no longer offers internships either.
The SDT found that 43 out of 50 allegations were proved in full, with two partly proved and five not proved. Five of the proven allegations were not considered misconduct, including him telling one staff member that he regularly used prostitutes.
The tribunal noted “significant recurring themes across the complainants’ evidence, including inappropriate personal questioning during interviews, comments about appearance or dress, dismissive or demeaning language, and conduct that blurred professional boundaries”.
The SDT found each of the women to be “truthful and honest witnesses who gave convincing, accurate, and credible evidence”.
By contrast, Mr Navani’s evidence was “particularly lacking in credibility”.
The SDT said: “His oral account was marked by frequent assertions of poor recollection and broad denials, often accompanied by formulaic statements such as ‘I would never say that’ or ‘I do not recall’, without any coherent alternative explanation.
“Where reasons were advanced, they were found to be inconsistent, contrived, and lacking in substance.”
The tribunal heard evidence that Mr Navani regularly shouted “oi” at staff, clicked his fingers to summon them, demanded employees bring back “treats” or sweets after annual leave – and after one returned from her grandfather’s funeral – and threatened them with being “blacklisted” from future opportunities.
One complainant described being reduced to tears during a disciplinary meeting held because she returned from holiday without sweets for colleagues.
He told her that due to the university she went to she would not get a pupillage opportunity elsewhere and “shouted at her with clenched fists”.
When the same woman told Mr Navani that she required hospital treatment due to fertility problems, he said: “Well at least you won’t need to take maternity leave.”
Other incidents included: threatening not to sign off a pupillage “for no good reason”; showing an employee a CV of an applicant for a training contract and saying the applicant was “very sexy” and/or that he was “always looking for a wife”; and, after being told about one employee’s personal health issue, giving her a box of Wellwoman tablets in front of other members of staff and telling her they would make her better and stop her taking time off for medical appointments.
Mr Navani shouted at one employee to end a call with a client and told her that he came first.
In a disciplinary meeting held without notice, he shouted at an employee that she was a “bitch” and/or a “liar”.
The most serious allegation concerned an intern, following the office Christmas party in December 2018.
The tribunal found that Mr Navani offered to drive her to the station but instead took her to his flat, despite her repeated requests to go home.
The SDT recorded: “She described rising panic during the journey and said she felt unable to object because of concerns about her career.
“She stated that once inside the flat, [Mr Navani] dimmed the lights, adjusted the sofa to recline, and suggested she lie down. He offered her a drink, told her to relax, and proposed meditation.”
After ignoring more requests to leave, he eventually asked her for “a hug and a kiss” before she left.
The SDT concluded that this conduct was sexually motivated. It said the woman’s account was “detailed, internally consistent, and compelling” and rejected Mr Navani’s explanation that he was merely trying to help a distressed colleague.
In deciding sanction, the SDT said the majority of the incidents were “spontaneous and opportunistic rather than premeditated or deliberate”.
At the same time, Mr Navani’s “seniority and experience imposed a heightened duty to maintain professional standards”.
The harm caused by his actions was “significant”. The SDT explained: “All were young women entering the profession with high hopes and aspirations. The tribunal accepted that the misconduct caused considerable distress and undermined their confidence at a formative stage in their careers.
“The tone of their individual impact statements and oral evidence revealed to the tribunal their pride in overcoming the experience and continuing in their chosen field.
“The harm was compounded by the substantial imbalance of power and [Mr Navani’s] position of authority, which rendered the complainants particularly vulnerable.”
He had also showed “limited and largely reactive” insight into his conduct, “amounting at best to an acknowledgment of the impact of the complainants’ evidence rather than a full or genuine understanding of his own misconduct”.
The SDT said the absence of dishonesty or misuse of client funds meant a strike-off would be disproportionate in all the circumstances.
A suspension was appropriate but suspending that – combined with the restrictions on his managerial role – “would adequately protect the public and uphold professional standards, given the absence of further issues since the events in question”.
The SRA sought costs of £163,950. The SDT ordered that they be subject to detailed assessment.
The full ruling can be found here [1].