Solicitor suspended – A criminal defence solicitor, John Navani, was suspended for a year after a tribunal found he bullied and harassed five junior female staff members between 2016 and 2019. The misconduct included humiliation over “sweets” for the office, intrusive questions abo
The door closed on another client call, and across the office it didn’t sound like legal work anymore.
A criminal defence solicitor. John Navani. clicked his fingers. pointed at a junior staff member and called out “oi cunt” before hanging up her phone. a tribunal heard. The behaviour wasn’t treated as an isolated outburst. Over the course of 2016 to 2019. five junior female staff members said Navani routinely bullied and harassed them—using fear of career consequences. humiliating comments. and a recurring obsession with “sweets” brought into the office.
When the Bar Standards Board first moved, it removed Navani’s firm’s authorisation to offer pupillages. But the formal professional reckoning came through the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), which ultimately suspended him and barred him from key professional interactions.
Navani’s “treats” fixation kept surfacing in multiple accounts. One staff member—later described as a caseworker. pupil and then a barrister at the firm—said she returned from holiday empty-handed and was pulled into a disciplinary meeting. She was accused of not being a “team player” and was given an official warning after she failed to bring Navani sweets.
Another complainant described coming back after her grandfather’s funeral and being asked by Navani, “you don’t look sad, did you bring back any treats?” A fourth said after she took time off to visit her ill grandparents, Navani exclaimed, “You’re back. Where are the treats?”
The same accounts also described Navani directing attention toward women’s bodies and futures in ways that made ordinary office life feel permanently conditional. The tribunal heard that he was preoccupied with concerns that female staff might become pregnant.
When Navani pressed Person A to disclose the reason for a hospital appointment related to fertility issues, the staff member said he remarked that “at least you won’t need to take maternity leave.”
Person D recalled that during an interview for a position at the firm. Navani asked whether she had a boyfriend and whether she planned to marry. adding. “I’m trying to figure out when you’re going to go on maternity leave.” She accepted the role anyway because she said training contracts in criminal law were scarce. but the tribunal heard his comments were still inappropriate.
The harassment described in the cases was not limited to questions. The tribunal heard that Navani threatened to not sign off a pupillage without a good reason and shouted at a staff member for taking lunch breaks.
A fifth complainant. Person C. said Navani showed her a CV of an applicant and described the candidate as “very sexy. ” adding that he was “always looking for a wife.” She also described him calling an intern a “massive airhead” and making derogatory remarks about universities. saying graduates “from Hatfield” (the University of Hertfordshire) were “wasters and idiots.”.
That same complainant told the tribunal Navani instructed her to use make-up on her eczema. saying it looked “disgusting. ” and asking whether it was “catchy.” When she disclosed medical issues. he presented her with two boxes of “Well Woman 70+” vitamins in the office. which she considered “humiliating.” She also said he called her an “Apple whore” while asking for technical help.
In disciplinary meetings, the language described by complainants grew sharper. Person D said she was left in tears and resigned immediately after Navani shouted at her in a disciplinary meeting, calling her a “liar” and a “bitch” and accusing her of gossiping.
For Person E, the alleged pressure blended work, power and personal intrusion. The tribunal heard that in a job interview. Navani asked intrusive questions including whether she had ever had therapy. whether she felt abandoned by her parents’ divorce. and whether she had a boyfriend or planned to marry.
She also described an awkward visit to Navani’s flat after the firm’s Christmas party. which she said she felt unable to avoid due to his power over her career. Once inside. she said he dimmed the lights. “offered her a drink. told her to relax. and proposed meditation.” She alleged he asked her to help put his son to bed. suggested she could become a “live-in nanny. ” and when she tried to leave he asked for a hug and a kiss.
Navani’s response was different. He claimed that Person E came over to fix his phone and that, contrary to her account, he was trying to get her to leave. The SDT rejected his version, describing his account as “lacked plausibility and did not withstand scrutiny.”
The tribunal also dealt with the parts of the allegations that did not cross the threshold for professional misconduct. It did not accept every element of every complaint. It found that many of Person A’s claims were proved. but it ruled that some of Navani’s other behaviour—such as giving her a hug outside court. and telling her he had used a prostitute—did not reach the threshold for professional misconduct.
At the heart of the case was not just what was said. but how Navani handled his own explanation as allegations emerged. When the complaints first came to light, the Bar Standards Board removed his firm’s authorisation to offer pupillages. At that stage, Navani initially maintained that the allegations were fabricated and the result of the women colluding. By the time of the SDT hearing. he altered his approach and argued that the offences did not meet the threshold for professional misconduct.
When the SDT delivered its decision, it ordered Navani to be suspended for a year, but suspended that sentence for two years. It also barred him from conducting interviews and from holding disciplinary meetings for two years.
The SDT further addressed the costs application brought by the SRA. It ordered that any request for Navani to pay £164k in costs would be subject to a detailed assessment.
For the women who raised complaints, the case is about more than sanctioning a solicitor. Between the “sweets” reminders. the pregnancy-and-maternity comments. the threats around pupillage sign-off. and the moments described as humiliating and destabilising. the tribunal’s findings portray an office where power was used to control. intimidate and reduce colleagues to targets—until the professional system finally stepped in.
John Navani solicitor suspension SDT Bar Standards Board Criminal Defence Solicitors LLP workplace harassment pupillage pregnancy comments sweets