Manjeet Kaur Chaggar

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

Three solicitors were disciplined in connection with the practice of Chaggar & Co. Mrs Chaggar engaged in 'teeming and lading', using one client's mortgage funds to cover shortfalls on other matters, falsified accounting records and made misleading statements, practised without/in breach of conditions on her Practising Certificate, and (with her brother) held out a sham partnership. Her brother (Respondent 2) and Mr Kumar (Respondent 3) were held liable for Accounts Rules breaches and for permitting/failing to supervise her practising. The Tribunal expressly found Mrs Chaggar was 'basically an honest person' and the applicant accepted she had not dishonestly taken funds for her own use - so no express dishonesty finding was made. Mrs Chaggar was struck off; Respondent 2 fined £5,000; Respondent 3 fined £3,000; costs (~£21,000) apportioned 1/5, 1/10 and 7/10 respectively.

Duties found breached:

• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Supervise staff and delegated work
• Hold a current practising certificate

Aggravating factors:

• Falsification of accounting records and misleading statements
• Perpetuation of the shortfall through continued teeming and lading
• Continuing to practise in disregard of intervention and conditions on Practising Certificate
• Respondent 3 failed to admit allegations, sought to shift blame and made unsubstantiated conspiracy/fraud allegations that prolonged proceedings

Mitigating factors:

• Mrs Chaggar did not misappropriate funds for her own benefit; had been duped by clients
• Tribunal regarded Mrs Chaggar as basically an honest person
• Great frankness and full admissions by Mrs Chaggar and Respondent 2
• Respondents 2 and 3 acted from family loyalty/good motives to rescue Mrs Chaggar
• Respondents 2 and 3 reported matters to the Law Society and took advice on discovering the deficiencies
• Respondent 3's own Accounts Rules breaches were not at the most serious level and were rectified
• Severe financial impact on Respondent 2 (£52,000 intervention costs) and testimonials to good character