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 solicitors of S K Kumar Law Practice LLP for allowing Udeh Kumar, who had been struck off the roll in 2017, to have de facto control over the conduct of a litigation matter (DC 2662) for nearly two years while they were the solicitors on record. The respondents pleaded guilty to charges under s 83(2)(h) of the LPA. The Court of 3 Supreme Court Judges found the conduct involved an element of dishonesty, as the respondents deliberately concealed Mr Kumar's disbarred status from the complainant. The first respondent was suspended for five years commencing on his discharge from bankruptcy. The second respondent, given his seniority, role as managing partner, string of antecedents, and dishonesty, was struck off the roll. The court expressly found dishonesty against both respondents. Respondents were ordered to pay costs of $8,000 (court hearing), $3,500 (DT hearing), and disbursements of $15,041.10 in equal shares. The court also made observations questioning the correctness of Christopher Yap regarding consecutive suspension periods exceeding five years.

Duties found breached:

• No taking unfair advantage

Aggravating factors:

• Knowingly allowed a disbarred lawyer (found unfit to practise) to carry on practice of law
• Deceived the complainant regarding Mr Kumar's status as an unauthorised person (element of dishonesty)
• Total absence of supervision/control over Mr Kumar's conduct of the case for nearly two years
• Seniority of the respondents (first respondent 23 years, second respondent 32 years' standing)
• Second respondent's role as managing partner with heightened responsibilities
• Second respondent's antecedents (Dhanwant Singh 1996 striking off, 2020 fine, 2025 five-year suspension), particularly the strikingly similar 2025 case
• Harm and prejudice caused to the complainant (unless order, default judgment, unsatisfied costs order, misappropriated moneys)

Mitigating factors:

• Plea of guilt (minimal weight, given late plea and attempts to qualify guilt)
• Lack of personal gain from the misconduct (treated as neutral)
• First respondent's lack of antecedents

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