Suspended suspension
A solicitor who bullied and harassed five junior female colleagues, routinely demanding they bring ‘treats’ back from holiday, telling one her eczema looked “disgusting” and taking an intern back to his flat after the office Christmas party, has been given a suspended suspension and banned from conducting recruitment interviews.
John Kishin Navani was a partner of Criminal Defence Solicitors, a legal aid firm in the City, when the conduct took place between 2016 and 2019. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found 43 of 50 individual allegations proved following a hearing.
The treatment of five complainants, referred to as Persons A to E, followed recurring patterns. Navani regularly shouted “oi” at staff or clicked his fingers to summon them, and asked “intrusive personal questions” about relationships, pregnancy plans and medical conditions.
The “treats” issue surfaced repeatedly across multiple complainants. When Person A returned from holiday without sweets for colleagues, Navani convened a disciplinary meeting lasting around 30 minutes, told her she was not a “team player”, and shouted at her with clenched fists when she tried to leave. He is also said to have criticised her university background and threatened to “blacklist her from future pupillage opportunities,” according to published ruling.
When Person B returned to work after her grandfather’s funeral, he asked her: “You don’t look sad, did you bring back any treats?” Person D, returning from annual leave to visit ill grandparents, was told: “You’re back. Where are the treats?” and “Who cares why you were gone, you still weren’t here so you should have brought treats.”
He pressed Person A to explain the reason for a hospital appointment and, when she disclosed it related to fertility issues, told her: “… at least you won’t need to take maternity leave.” During her interview for a position at the firm, Person D was asked by Navani whether she had a boyfriend and whether she planned to marry. He told her: “I’m trying to figure out when you’re going to go on maternity leave.” She took the role despite the discomfort, the tribunal heard, due to the lack of training contracts in criminal law.
Other proven conduct included showing Person C a CV of a job applicant and describing them as “very sexy” while saying he was “always looking for a wife.” He also commented on Person C’s eczema, telling her she looked “disgusting” and asking if it was “catchy.” On a separate occasion, after Person C had disclosed a medical condition, he publicly presented her with two boxes of “Well Woman 70+” vitamins in front of colleagues, telling her they would stop her taking time off for medical appointments.
One of the most serious findings related to Person E, an intern, following the firm’s Christmas party in December 2018. Navani took her to his flat, where he “dimmed the lights, adjusted the sofa to recline, and suggested she lie down” before offering her a drink and proposing meditation. After she had repeatedly said she needed to leave, he asked for a hug and a kiss before she departed. Person E said these actions and comments made her feel “trapped and fearful.”
The tribunal found this conduct was sexually motivated, concluding that it demonstrated an expectation of a “future sexual relationship” when viewed alongside the broader pattern of behaviour towards Person E.
Navani had initially alleged in his written defence that some of the complainants had fabricated allegations and colluded with one another. He retreated from that position during the hearing. The tribunal found all five women to be credible and consistent witnesses, while finding Navani’s own evidence “particularly lacking in credibility,” noting his reliance on assertions such as “I would never say that” and “I do not recall” without any coherent alternative explanation.
The tribunal concluded that strike-off would be disproportionate, noting that the majority of incidents were “spontaneous and opportunistic rather than premeditated or deliberate” and that there had been no dishonesty or misuse of client funds.
Navani was handed a 12-month suspension, itself suspended for 24 months, on the condition that he complies with a restriction barring him from involvement in recruitment interviews or disciplinary investigations at any solicitors’ firm for the same period.
The Bar Standards Board removed the firm’s authorisation to offer pupillage in November 2019 following the complaints, and it no longer offers internships either.