K V Sudeep Kumar

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

The Law Society brought disciplinary proceedings against two partners of S K Kumar Law Practice LLP for allowing Udeh Kumar - a lawyer struck off the roll in 2017 - to have de facto conduct of a client's litigation (DC 2662) for nearly two years while they were the solicitors on record. Both pleaded guilty to charges under s 83(2)(h) LPA. The Court of 3 Supreme Court Judges found sufficient cause and expressly found dishonesty: the respondents deliberately concealed Mr Kumar's status as an unfit, unauthorised person and falsely represented to the complainant that he could act for him. The court held the misconduct was graver than in Troy Yeo because it involved knowingly permitting an unfit, disbarred lawyer to practise. The first respondent, who had no antecedents, was suspended for five years commencing on discharge from his bankruptcy. The second respondent, more senior and the managing partner with multiple antecedents (including similar misconduct in Dhanwant Singh (2025)), was struck off the roll, dishonesty and a fundamental lack of respect for the law making striking off the presumptive and appropriate sanction. The court made obiter observations questioning the Christopher Yap rule against total suspension exceeding five years but declined to decide the point. Respondents ordered to pay, in equal shares, costs of $8,000 (C3J hearing), $3,500 (DT hearing) and disbursements of $15,041.10.

Duties found breached:

• No taking unfair advantage

Aggravating factors:

• Knowingly allowing a disbarred lawyer, found unfit to practise, to carry on practising law
• Dishonest concealment of Mr Kumar's status from the complainant (deliberate false representation through acts and omissions)
• Total absence of supervision/control over the unauthorised person for nearly two years
• Harm and prejudice caused to the complainant (unless order, default judgment, unrecovered costs moneys)
• Seniority of the respondents (23 and 32 years' standing)
• For the second respondent: role as managing partner and string of prior antecedents (Dhanwant Singh 1996, 2020 and 2025), including strikingly similar misconduct in Dhanwant Singh (2025)

Mitigating factors:

• Plea of guilt (accorded minimal weight, and late in the case of the second respondent)
• Lack of personal gain from the misconduct (treated as neutral at best)
• First respondent's lack of antecedents

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["unverified_costs_amount=26541.1", "unverified_suspension_months=60"]