Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A partner who took a junior intern back to his flat after an office Christmas party and made offensive comments about a colleague’s fertility issues has narrowly avoided an immediate ban from practising.
A UK criminal defence partner has been handed a suspended sentence after a tribunal found he bullied and harassed junior female colleagues over several years, fostering what was described as an “intimidating, hostile (and) humiliating” workplace environment.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard 50 detailed allegations brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) against John Kishin Navani, covering claims of inappropriate conduct towards five female colleagues, with one incident alleged to have been sexually motivated.
Across dozens of incidents, the allegations range from claims he shouted at junior employees, threatened their careers, humiliated them in meetings, and made inappropriate remarks about their appearance, relationships, and personal medical matters.
The tribunal heard evidence from five former junior female staff members – referred to as Persons A to E – who worked at the law firm over the three-year period during which the alleged incidents occurred.
The SRA argued Navani’s conduct reflected a “pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour” that escalated over time from “minor incidents to serious disciplinary meetings”.
Of the 50 allegations heard by the tribunal, 43 against Navani were proven in full, two were upheld in part, and just five were dismissed.
One of the incidents proved against Navani involved Person A, who was on a client call when he “clicked his fingers, pointed at her, and called out ‘oi c--t’ across the room”, before she ended the call, later describing the moment as “aggressive and shocking”.
Person A also told the tribunal that Navani pressured her to disclose the reason for a hospital appointment, stating “he would not approve leave unless she explained”, and upon learning it related to fertility issues, he remarked that “at least she would not need maternity leave”.
Other junior staff described similar experiences of humiliation and intimidation, with Person B telling the tribunal that, after returning to work following her grandfather’s funeral, Navani told her, “You don’t look sad, did you bring back any treats?”
Person C shared with the tribunal that Navani showed her a job applicant and described them as “very sexy”, saying he was “always looking for a wife”, and separately referred to another intern as a “massive airhead”.
On top of that, Navani also told this employee that her eczema looked “disgusting” and questioned whether it was “catchy”, publicly handed her two boxes of “Well Woman 70+” vitamins in front of colleagues after she disclosed medical issues, and shouted at her to end a client call.
However, some of the most serious allegations before the tribunal concerned Person E, an intern at the time, who told the tribunal she was driven to Navani’s flat after a 2018 Christmas party despite repeatedly asking to be taken home.
Once inside the flat, Person E told the tribunal that Navani allegedly “dimmed the lights, adjusted the sofa to recline, and suggested she lie down”, before offering her a drink and proposing mediation techniques to help her relax.
After she repeatedly said she needed to leave, he allegedly asked for a hug and a kiss before she departed, with Person E telling the tribunal the exchange left her feeling “trapped and fearful”.
The tribunal ruled that this conduct was “sexually motivated”, finding it reflected an expectation of a “future sexual relationship” when considered alongside the broader pattern of behaviour towards Person E.
While Navani initially alleged in his written defence that some of the complaints were fabricated and involved collusion between witnesses, the tribunal instead found the evidence presented to be “truthful and credible”, describing his own account as “unconvincing and lacking credibility”.
While a strike-off was considered, the tribunal ultimately found it would be “disproportionate” in light of the mitigating factors and the absence of dishonesty or misuse of client funds.
Instead, Navani was handed a 12-month suspension from practising as a solicitor, but the penalty was itself suspended for 24 months – meaning he will not be immediately stood down, provided he complies with strict conditions, including a ban on any involvement in recruitment interviews or disciplinary investigations at any solicitors’ firm over that period.
