Inderjit Pal Singh Nijher

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

Four solicitor-directors of Davies Simmons Limited faced allegations arising from an SRA investigation and intervention. The first respondent, Nijher, admitted misappropriating client funds and was found to have been dishonest under the Twinsectra test - he had created false ledger entries in the firm's statements to disguise payments (often to himself) that differed from the bank's original statements, over a prolonged period. He was struck off. The Tribunal did not find dishonesty against the second respondent [Respondent 2] on the misappropriation or fabricated-documents allegations, but found her reckless in signing documents to the LCS/SRA without checking them; she was fined £7,500. The third and fourth respondents (no dishonesty pursued) were each fined £5,000 for accounts breaches. Costs of £46,600 were assessed and apportioned: Nijher £10,000, and the others £4,660, £2,330 and £2,330. An LCS direction re Mr M was made enforceable as a High Court order.

Duties found breached:

• No abuse of process or coercive powers
• No improper communication with the court
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports

Aggravating factors:

• Sustained pattern of deception over prolonged period (March-October 2007)
• Sophisticated concealment - two sets of bank statements with false ledger entries
• Money taken for Nijher's personal benefit (e.g. personal credit card payments)
• Fourth Respondent did nothing for 8 months despite knowing of accounts problems

Mitigating factors:

• Nijher's full and frank admissions and acceptance of full responsibility
• Nijher's alcohol dependency and personal difficulties (medical evidence)
• Second Respondent had less than a year's experience and was largely on sick leave
• Third and Fourth Respondents had smaller roles and no dishonesty pursued against them
• Limited financial means of respondents

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["unverified_fine_amount=17500", "unverified_costs_amount=19320"]