Kuldip Singh

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

Kuldip Singh, sole owner, manager, COLP and COFA of SJ Solicitors LLP, faced eight allegations. The Tribunal proceeded in his absence as he had voluntarily absented himself. It found proved that he employed and remunerated a struck-off solicitor (Mr O) after SRA permission had been expressly refused, used funds held on trust for Client A for other matters, caused and failed to remedy a minimum client account shortfall of £231,330.13, acted in situations of client conflict and own interest conflict in three loan transactions, failed to follow Client B's instructions, failed to return Client B's money until a freezing injunction was obtained, failed to maintain proper books of account, and failed in his COFA duties. Dishonesty was found proved in relation to allegation 1.1 (employing/remunerating Mr O and giving evasive/misleading responses when challenged) and allegation 1.5.2 (withholding Client B's loan repayment and lying that the property had not been sold). Applying Ivey, the Tribunal found dishonesty. Given the dishonesty findings and no exceptional circumstances (per Sharma), the Respondent was struck off the Roll and ordered to pay costs of £56,685.88.

Duties found breached:

• Integrity
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Act in the client's best interests
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• No own-interest conflict
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Firm governance, systems and compliance
• Cooperate openly with regulators
• No improper solicitation or touting

Aggravating factors:

• Dishonesty found proved in respect of two allegations
• Misconduct continued over a period of time
• Respondent ought to have known conduct was in material breach of obligations to protect public and reputation of profession
• Harm to clients - Client B had to go to court to recover a loan and part of Client C's loan remained unpaid
• Respondent controlled the firm and was COFA; actions were planned