A solicitor has been struck off after making more than £2.8m in improper payments from his firm’s client bank account.
Jasbinder Singh Sohal, who was owner and director of Huddersfield-based firm Sterlingking Limited, was found by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to be dishonest after a one-day hearing last month.
Sohal did not attend the tribunal and was not represented at the hearing.
Between April and May 2019 the Solicitors Regulation Authority received eight reports, six of which were made by individuals who said they transferred money to the firm to purchase properties. The property purchases were not completed and the money had not been returned to the clients despite their requests.
An investigation found that between 3 August 2018 and 21 February 2019, a total of 14 improper transfers were made from the firm’s client account.
The SDT judgment said Sohal had made admissions in relation to seven of the transactions. In May 2019, the SRA intervened without giving notice to Sohal.
Since the intervention into the firm, the SRA’s compensation fund has paid out £3,847,090.91 to former clients of the firm.
The judgment said Sohal ‘misused’ the money held on the client account ‘by using it for purposes other than those intended by the client, causing a client account shortage’.
It added: ‘Instead of using the money for purposes for which the client intended, namely purchasing properties on behalf of the clients in question, the respondent made 14 payments totalling £2,852,000.00 to Person C or to other third parties at the direction of Person C. By doing so, the respondent did not treat client money as sacrosanct and therefore failed to act with integrity and to behave in a way that maintained the trust the public places in him and in the provision of legal services.’
Finding Sohal’s conduct was dishonest the judgment added: ‘Ordinary and decent people would not expect a solicitor to misappropriate or otherwise misuse money to which they were not entitled and which belonged to clients and would regard such conduct as dishonest.’
Sohal, admitted in 2022, was also found to have stalked Person G. He failed to notify the SRA of his stalking conviction.
The judgment said: ‘Whilst the misconduct in this matter took place outside of the respondent’s professional practice, the misconduct was so serious, that it resulted in a criminal conviction for stalking. This resulted in a community order, a restraining order, and a rehabilitation activity requirement was ordered as a direct alternative to custody.
‘By failing to report his conviction, the respondent showed a lack of respect for his responsibilities as a regulated person and obstructed the SRA’s ability to carry out its regulatory function.’
Striking off Sohal, the tribunal said the misconduct was ‘very serious’ and it ‘did not consider that a fine or suspension would be sufficient or appropriate’.
Sohal was also ordered to pay £16,280.50 costs.
