John Kishin Navani

Introduction

John Kishin Navani is a solicitor, admitted in 1996, who was suspended from practice for twelve months after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found he had engaged in behaviour that was inappropriate and amounted to harassment and bullying towards five people who worked at his own firm. Navani was the owner of and a partner at The Independent Criminal Law Specialists, a criminal defence practice trading as Criminal Defence Solicitors, between June 2016 and February 2019. Across six schedules setting out fifty particulars of alleged misconduct, the tribunal proved forty-three in their entirety and two in part, and found that one allegation involved conduct that was sexually motivated.

Background Information

Navani ran his firm through a period in which the tribunal later found he had mistreated the people working under him. The complaints were brought by five individuals identified in the proceedings only as Persons A to E, all of whom worked at the firm during the period in question. The tribunal’s decision, issued after hearings in December 2024 and between 24 November and 5 December 2025, assessed the case under the SRA Principles 2011 and the SRA Code of Conduct 2011, the regulatory framework in force at the time of the conduct.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Civil regulatory finding, not a criminal verdict. The account below comes from the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision as reported by the Law Society Gazette. The findings were made on the civil standard of proof in professional disciplinary proceedings; no criminal charges arose from the matter.

The tribunal found that Navani’s behaviour towards five members of his staff was inappropriate and amounted to harassment and bullying, in breach of Principles 2, 6 and 9 of the SRA Principles and of the code’s requirements on treatment of colleagues. Of the fifty particulars alleged across six schedules, forty-three were proved in their entirety, two were proved in part, and five were not proved. The tribunal also found one allegation proved in the alternative: that certain conduct towards Person E was sexually motivated, within the meaning given to that phrase in the case of Basson v GMC.

In assessing culpability, the tribunal rated it as medium, taking the view that the majority of the incidents had been spontaneous and opportunistic rather than premeditated or deliberate. It held, however, that Navani’s seniority and experience imposed a heightened duty to maintain professional standards, and that the harm caused was significant, as evidenced by the impact statements of the complainants, and was compounded by a substantial imbalance of power and by Navani’s position of authority, which rendered the complainants particularly vulnerable.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The tribunal determined that a suspension order was appropriate given the overall nature and seriousness of the misconduct, and that a suspended suspension would adequately protect the public given the absence of further issues since the events in question. It imposed a twelve-month suspension from 5 December 2025, but suspended that suspension for two years from the same date, conditional on Navani’s compliance throughout that period with a restriction order preventing him from being involved in professional recruitment interviews or disciplinary investigations within any solicitors’ firm. The tribunal noted that the restriction did not extend to participation in regulatory investigations conducted by the SRA or other approved regulators.

The tribunal also ordered Navani to pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings, to be subject to detailed assessment unless otherwise agreed. The reported decision does not record any public statement from Navani in response to the findings.

Current Status

Navani’s suspension took effect from 5 December 2025 and is suspended for two years, meaning he may practise subject to the restriction order so long as he complies with its terms. If he breaches the condition, the twelve-month suspension can be activated. The restriction order itself is open to variation by agreement of either party applying to the tribunal.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The findings place a formal record of harassment and bullying, with one sexually motivated element, on the regulatory history of a solicitor of nearly thirty years’ standing. The bar on involvement in recruitment interviews and disciplinary investigations removes him from the firm functions in which his authority over staff would carry the greatest weight, and the suspended suspension leaves him practising under a two-year compliance shadow in which any further misconduct finding would trigger his removal from the roll for the duration of the suspension.

Sources

• Law Society Gazette, “Recent decisions: 10 July 2026” (SDT decisions, respondent John Kishin Navani), 10 July 2026 — source