John Kishin – A law firm owner who bullied and harassed five junior women has been handed a 12-month suspension, suspended for two years, alongside restrictions barring him from recruitment interviews and disciplinary investigations for the same period.
When a Christmas party ended in the wrong place, the aftermath carried into a courtroom.
John Kishin Navani, the owner of a City law firm and one of its two partners, was found to have bullied and harassed five junior female colleagues between 2016 and 2019, with the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal concluding that the most serious incident was sexually motivated.
Navani, who qualified as a solicitor in 1996, now faces a 12-month suspension suspended for two years. The tribunal also imposed restrictions preventing him from taking part in recruitment interviews or disciplinary investigations at any law firm over the same period.
The tribunal’s decision follows complaints that began to surface after allegations about Navani’s conduct. It noted that the Bar Standards Board removed the firm’s authorisation to offer pupillage in 2019 in response to the complaints. The firm no longer offers internships either.
The SDT found that 43 out of 50 allegations were proved in full, with two partly proved and five not proved.
For the women, the tribunal described patterns that went far beyond ordinary workplace friction. It pointed to what it called “significant recurring themes across the complainants’ evidence. ” including inappropriate personal questioning during interviews. comments about appearance or dress. dismissive or demeaning language. and conduct that blurred professional boundaries.
The tribunal found each of the women to be “truthful and honest witnesses who gave convincing, accurate, and credible evidence.” By contrast, it said Navani’s evidence was “particularly lacking in credibility.”
In its findings. the tribunal said Navani’s account was marked by frequent assertions of poor recollection and broad denials. often accompanied by formulaic statements such as “I would never say that” or “I do not recall. ” without any coherent alternative explanation. Where reasons were advanced, the tribunal said they were inconsistent, contrived, and lacking in substance.
Several incidents described in the evidence show how tightly conduct was tied to status inside the firm. The tribunal heard that Navani regularly shouted “oi” at staff. clicked his fingers to summon them. demanded employees bring back “treats” or sweets after annual leave—and after one complainant returned from her grandfather’s funeral—and threatened them with being “blacklisted” from future opportunities.
One woman told the tribunal she was reduced to tears during a disciplinary meeting because she returned from holiday without sweets for colleagues. The tribunal heard that he told her that due to the university she attended she would not get a pupillage opportunity elsewhere. and “shouted at her with clenched fists.”.
When the same woman told Navani she required hospital treatment due to fertility problems, the tribunal recorded that he said: “Well at least you won’t need to take maternity leave.”
Other evidence included threats not to sign off a pupillage “for no good reason.” The tribunal also heard that Navani showed an employee a CV of an applicant for a training contract and said the applicant was “very sexy” and/or that he was “always looking for a wife.”
In one incident, after being told about an employee’s personal health issue, Navani gave her a box of Wellwoman tablets in front of other members of staff and told her they would make her better and stop her taking time off for medical appointments.
Navani also shouted at one employee to end a call with a client and told her that he came first. In a disciplinary meeting held without notice, the tribunal heard, he shouted at an employee that she was a “bitch” and/or a “liar.”
The SDT treated the intern incident as the most serious.
After the office Christmas party in December 2018. the tribunal found Navani offered to drive the intern to the station but instead took her to his flat. despite her repeated requests to go home. The SDT recorded that she described rising panic during the journey and said she felt unable to object because of concerns about her career.
The tribunal said that once inside the flat. Navani dimmed the lights. adjusted the sofa to recline. and suggested she lie down. He offered her a drink, told her to relax, and proposed meditation. After ignoring more requests to leave. the SDT found that he eventually asked her for “a hug and a kiss” before she left.
The SDT concluded that the conduct was sexually motivated. It rejected Navani’s explanation that he was merely trying to help a distressed colleague, saying the woman’s account was “detailed, internally consistent, and compelling.”
In mitigation, Navani told the tribunal that his conduct was “careless, spontaneous, and insensitive rather than premeditated or planned.” He accepted the harm caused, and the SDT recorded that his initial stance accusing the witnesses of collusion and fabrication was “misplaced.”
When it came to punishment, the tribunal said the majority of the incidents were “spontaneous and opportunistic rather than premeditated or deliberate.” At the same time, it said Navani’s “seniority and experience imposed a heightened duty to maintain professional standards.”
It also found the harm to have been “significant.” In its explanation. the tribunal said the women were young and entering the profession with high hopes and aspirations. and it accepted that the misconduct caused considerable distress and undermined their confidence at a formative stage. It added that the women’s impact statements and oral evidence showed their pride in overcoming the experience and continuing in their chosen field.
The tribunal said the harm was compounded by the substantial imbalance of power and Navani’s position of authority. which left the complainants particularly vulnerable. It also described his insight as “limited and largely reactive. ” amounting to “at best to an acknowledgment of the impact of the complainants’ evidence rather than a full or genuine understanding of his own misconduct.”.
The SDT said it would not strike him off because of the absence of dishonesty or misuse of client funds, calling that option disproportionate in the circumstances.
Instead, it concluded that a suspension was appropriate, and that suspending it—together with the restrictions on his managerial role—“would adequately protect the public and uphold professional standards,” noting the absence of further issues since the events in question.
The SRA sought costs of £163,950, and the tribunal ordered that the costs be subject to detailed assessment.
The full ruling can be found here.
John Kishin Navani Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal SDT law firm bullying sexual misconduct junior female staff suspension professional standards SRA costs pupillage authorization