Kirna Devi Madhas

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

Kirna Devi Madhas, a solicitor and sole director of a personal injury firm, was found to have failed to notify ATE insurers of negative counsel advice, failed to notify clients of adverse costs orders, failed to comply with Legal Ombudsman awards, submitted inflated/false costs schedules, produced a forged CFA to the County Court (per District Judge Neaves' findings), failed to provide client files to clients and the SRA, and made material non-disclosures on a PII proposal form. The Tribunal found dishonesty proved on allegations 1.4, 1.5 and 1.7 applying the Ivey test. The Respondent did not engage with proceedings and the hearing proceeded in her absence. Finding no exceptional circumstances under Sharma/James, the Tribunal struck her off the Roll and ordered costs of £40,000 (reduced from £59,054.98 claimed).

Duties found breached:

• Act in the client's best interests
• Avoid wasting the court's time
• Cooperate openly with regulators
• Firm governance, systems and compliance
• Handle inadvertently received material
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• Uphold public trust in the profession

Aggravating factors:

• Dishonesty found across multiple allegations
• Deliberate, calculated, repeated and systematic conduct
• Took advantage of vulnerable clients who had suffered personal injuries
• Financial motivation/greed
• Harm spread across multiple clients causing financial loss and personal stress
• Made unfounded and malicious complaints against a fellow professional (costs lawyer)
• Misled the regulator and failed to co-operate
• Blamed others to avoid responsibility
• No genuine insight or admissions

Mitigating factors:

• No previous disciplinary findings
• Hitherto unblemished career