PII: Solicitor had conditions imposed eight years ago
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has lifted all restrictions on the future practice of a solicitor who was indefinitely suspended for failing to pay indemnity insurance premiums.
Harjit Singh Kang had done “all that he could” to rehabilitate himself since his first attempt to remove the conditions in 2021, it said.
He had been shadowing the head of the law firm he worked for and “learning best practices” from him.
“He had fully accepted his shortcomings and had demonstrated insight and learning. The tribunal assessed the risk of future harm as low.”
Mr Kang, former sole principal of HS Kang & Co in Barking, East London, was indefinitely suspended in 2012 after failing to pay his firm’s insurance premiums. He later went bankrupt.
The SDT allowed him to return to practice in 2017, subject to conditions preventing him from being a sole practitioner or owner of a law firm, or a compliance officer, and from holding client money or being a signatory on client account.
His employment as a solicitor was made subject to the approval of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
Mr Kang made his first attempt to remove the conditions in 2021, but the tribunal was not satisfied that he had sufficiently demonstrated that he was rehabilitated and would not pose a risk to the public.
In particular, the tribunal said that “unless and until” he could demonstrate “with evidence that he had the competence to manage and run his own firm”, then the conditions remained necessary.
In his application, the solicitor “acknowledged that having reflected on his misconduct over the past several years, it had become clear that it was his lack of strategic focus and inappropriate supervision of staff that had led to the downfall of his former firm”.
He began working for his current employer, with the SRA’s permission, in 2015 and had gained “greater insight into his regulatory and compliance obligations”.
Since 2021, he had successfully completed the SRA management course and recognised the importance of “sound management” and regulatory compliance.
“He accepted the tribunal’s findings unequivocally and did not seek to minimise the seriousness of his previous misconduct. Nor did he seek to blame anyone else for that misconduct. His failings were his, and his alone.”
The SRA said it was “neutral” on the application; its “sole concern” was that “given his regulatory history, there might be some risk” were Mr Kang able to be as a sole owner and the tribunal “might consider that it was appropriate to maintain a restriction preventing him from doing so”.
The tribunal said it was satisfied that the solicitor had demonstrated “adequate learning” from the training courses he had undertaken.
“Mr Kang was able to identify the steps that he needed to take in order to ensure regulatory compliance and to ensure that staff were properly supervised.”
He had addressed the concerns raised by the tribunal in 2021 and “done all that he could in order to rehabilitate himself”.
The SDT granted Mr Kang’s application and ordered him to pay costs of £1,780.
