Law Firm Owner Accused of Bullying and Sexual Harassment Allowed to Keep Practising

A London law firm owner found to have bullied and harassed staff over a sustained three-year period has been allowed to remain in practice despite more than 40 allegations of misconduct being proven against him by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

John Kishin Navani, owner of Criminal Defence Solicitors, was accused by former employees of creating a toxic workplace culture marked by intimidation, humiliation and coercive behaviour, including sexually inappropriate conduct toward a junior colleague.

The tribunal heard evidence from five former staff members who described repeated incidents of verbal abuse, degrading comments and threats linked to their employment and career progression.

In one of the most serious allegations, a female employee told the tribunal she felt “trapped and fearful” after Navani allegedly insisted she accompany him to his flat following a Christmas party. Once there, she said he dimmed the lights, reclined the sofa and asked to hug and kiss her.

Although the tribunal did not find proven her claim that he deliberately drove her to the flat against her  wishes, it accepted significant elements of her account and heard that she later sent him a conciliatory message because she feared losing her job.

The tribunal concluded that Navani’s conduct amounted to a “repeated pattern” of inappropriate behaviour involving abuse of power, coercion and exploitation of vulnerable staff. It found there was a “substantial imbalance” in authority between Navani and the employees targeted by his behaviour.

Witnesses described a working environment dominated by fear and unpredictability. One former colleague said Navani’s demeanour could shift rapidly from “affable and aggressive”. She recounted how he pressured her to explain a hospital appointment and, after learning it related to fertility treatment, remarked that “at least she would not need fertility leave”, a comment she described as deeply upsetting.

The same witness said he threatened to blacklist employees, leaving staff fearful of resigning from the legal aid firm.

Another complainant told the tribunal she returned from her grandfather’s funeral only to be greeted with the remark: “You don’t look sad, did you bring back any treats?” The tribunal also found that Navani threatened without justification to withhold approval of her pupillage.

A third employee described being ridiculed over her eczema, with Navani allegedly telling her she looked “disgusting” and asking if the condition was “catchy”. She also said he insulted graduates from certain universities as “wasters and idiots” and shouted at her to end a call with a distressed client because “he came first”.

A fourth witness said she was branded a “liar” and a “bitch” during a disciplinary meeting before leaving the office in tears and resigning immediately afterward. She further alleged that Navani made racially inappropriate comments and repeatedly demanded to know why staff had failed to bring him gifts or treats after visiting sick relatives.

The fifth complainant described persistent sexist and inappropriate remarks during her internship, including comments about colleagues’ ethnicity, appearance and weight. She said Navani instructed her to identify which co-workers she would dismiss, encouraged criticism of colleagues and repeatedly questioned her about personal matters in public settings.

According to her evidence, he suggested she should “cover up her assets” and repeatedly pressed her to meet him after work. When she attempted to express discomfort, she said he replied: “You just think you wouldn’t be able to keep your hands off me.”

Several witnesses also described demeaning workplace conduct in which Navani allegedly summoned staff by clicking his fingers or shouting “oi” across the office.

Navani, who qualified as a solicitor in 1996, denied wrongdoing throughout much of the proceedings. However, the tribunal found his evidence lacked credibility, criticising his repeated claims that he “would never say that” or could not recall events.

The panel described his explanations as “inconsistent, contrived and lacking in substance”, while finding all five complainants to be truthful, reliable and credible witnesses.

Despite the seriousness and volume of the allegations, the tribunal stopped short of striking Navani off the roll of solicitors. Instead, it imposed a one-year suspension, suspended for two years, allowing him to continue practising subject to restrictions. He is barred from participating in recruitment interviews or disciplinary investigations within any law firm.

The tribunal said the sanction would sufficiently protect the public and maintain professional standards, noting there had been no further allegations since 2019. It also accepted mitigating factors advanced by Navani, including expressions of remorse and his admission that his earlier claims the women had fabricated allegations against him had been “misplaced”.

In mitigation, Navani argued his conduct had been “careless, spontaneous and insensitive” rather than calculated or deliberate. The tribunal acknowledged the absence of dishonesty or misuse of client money, concluding that striking him off would have been disproportionate. The Solicitors Regulation Authority sought legal costs of approximately £164,000. While the tribunal ordered Navani to pay costs, the final figure will be subject to detailed assessment.