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 charges arising from misappropriation of client funds and accounts breaches. The Tribunal expressly found that the First Respondent, Inderjit Singh Pal Nijher, had been dishonest (applying the Twinsectra test) in misappropriating client money and falsifying ledger entries to disguise payments made for his own benefit; he was struck off the Roll. The dishonesty allegations against Respondent 2 (allegations 1 and 9) were not made out, though the Tribunal found her behaviour reckless in signing documents without checking; she was fined £7,500. Respondents 3 and 4, who had no access to the accounts and against whom dishonesty was withdrawn, were each fined £5,000. Costs assessed at £46,600 were apportioned: Nijher £10,000 (reduced for means), Respondent 2 £4,660, Respondents 3 and 4 £2,330 each. The Tribunal also ordered an LCS adjudicator's direction re Mr M be enforceable as a High Court order.

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Not misrepresent regulated status

Aggravating factors:

• Sustained pattern of deception over a prolonged period (March-October 2007)
• Sophisticated concealment - false ledger entries while diverting money for personal benefit
• Original bank statements missing for the period of false entries
• Sole control of accounts exercised secretively by Nijher
• Betrayal of trust of fellow partners and colleagues
• Respondent 4 took no action for 8 months despite being aware of accounts problems

Mitigating factors:

• Nijher's full and frank admissions and acceptance of responsibility
• Nijher suffered from alcohol dependence syndrome and personal difficulties (medical evidence)
• Respondent 2 very inexperienced (qualified under a year, mostly on sick leave, no profit/benefit)
• Respondents 3 and 4 had much smaller roles and no access to accounts; dishonesty not pursued against them
• Character references provided
• Limited financial means of respondents

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