John Kishin Navani

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

The Respondent, a solicitor and partner/owner of a criminal defence firm, faced six allegations that while in a position of seniority he engaged in inappropriate conduct, harassment and/or bullying towards five young women (Persons A-E) at his firm between 2016 and 2019, with one allegation (Person E, following a Christmas party) alleged to be sexually motivated. The Tribunal found Persons A-E credible and the Respondent's evidence lacking credibility; of 50 particulars, 43 were proved in full, two in part, and five not proved. Allegation 1.6 conduct was found sexually motivated within the Basson test. No dishonesty was found and there was no misuse of client funds. Culpability was assessed as medium and harm as significant. Strike-off was deemed disproportionate; the Tribunal imposed a 12-month suspension, itself suspended for 2 years, with a 2-year restriction barring involvement in recruitment interviews and disciplinary investigations within any firm. Costs (£163,950.46 sought) were ordered subject to detailed assessment.

Duties found breached:

• Honesty
• Integrity
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• No unlawful discrimination or harassment
• Uphold public trust in the profession

Aggravating factors:

• Repeated pattern of inappropriate behaviour over a significant period
• Abuse of power and coercion compounded by substantial imbalance of authority
• Took undue advantage of at least one vulnerable complainant
• Proven sexual misconduct (sexually motivated conduct) in relation to one allegation
• Conduct met the definition of harassment under s.26 Equality Act 2010

Mitigating factors:

• Misconduct was verbal/behavioural rather than physical, spontaneous and not premeditated
• Exceptional personal pressures - single parent with sole responsibility for young child
• Expressed remorse and some (limited) insight; eventually resiled from collusion/fabrication allegations
• Over 25 years' practice with unblemished regulatory history; firm provided access to justice and was committed to diversity
• Significant delays not attributable to the Respondent affecting his mental health