Ravinder Balli & Sukjhit Chohan

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

Ravinder Balli, admitted 2009, and unadmitted clerk Sukjhit Chohan practised as members of R&S Law LLP. Balli falsely named PJS (and later DS) as supervising partners to obtain SRA recognition, provided false information to the SRA and to his insurer (failing to disclose his arrest/prosecution and a confiscation order), continued practising after recognition was rescinded, misled clients via a client-care letter implying two Mr Ballis, failed to cooperate with the SRA, and permitted unauthorised client account withdrawals. The Tribunal found Balli acted dishonestly (Twinsectra combined test) on allegations 1, 2 and 3 and struck him off, ordering £16,500 costs. Chohan was found to be a partner and made subject to a section 43 order with £5,500 costs; the Tribunal did not find Chohan dishonest. Two allegations (money laundering and one cooperation allegation against Chohan) were found not proved.

Duties found breached:

• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Fair dealing with unrepresented parties
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Comply with rules of foreign jurisdictions

Aggravating factors:

• Sought to set up practice in defiance of all regulation
• Breaches across a range of areas of practice
• Fabricated employment history and falsely named PJS and DS as supervising partners
• Continued to practise after recognition was rescinded
• Misleading conduct during SRA investigation

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent's relatively young age and inexperience
• No member of the public suffered loss
• Financial loss already sustained by First Respondent
• Stress of proceedings
• Second Respondent had low earnings and no established record