SDT removes solicitor Preeti King from the roll after perjury and practising without authorisation

Solicitor Preeti King struck off after perjury conviction and false practice claims

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has struck off solicitor Preeti King after finding that she committed perjury and dishonestly held herself out as a solicitor when she was no longer authorised to practise. The ruling follows a series of allegations brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, culminating in findings that her conduct breached fundamental principles of integrity, public trust, and regulatory compliance.

King, who was admitted in 2002 and ran King Solicitors (UK) Ltd in Southall, London, came under investigation after giving evidence in criminal proceedings in 2011. During the trial of another individual, she swore on oath that she had never entered into a business relationship with him, had not received clients through him, and had never received payment from him. However, under cross-examination she admitted that her firm had indeed received payments and that she had permitted him to draft letters on her firm’s letterhead. That contradiction led to a criminal prosecution in which, in August 2014, she was convicted of perjury at Woolwich Crown Court. She was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years.

The tribunal heard that despite losing her firm’s authorisation, King continued to present herself as a practising solicitor. After informing the SRA that she had merged with Morgans Solicitors in Harrow, she began corresponding with other solicitors using what appeared to be Morgans’ headed paper, signing herself as “associate” and later as “solicitor” of that firm. Evidence showed she used contact details linked to her former office in Southall and even supplied bank details purporting to be those of Morgans Solicitors, though they were not. One transaction involved the receipt of a £39,500 deposit and arrangements for a £357,500 balance in a property sale, raising grave concerns about client money being handled outside authorised accounts.

The tribunal found that King had misled others by falsely claiming to be part of Morgans Solicitors, and that she operated as if she were a sole practitioner without being authorised, employed or supervised by any regulated firm. She also failed to obtain professional indemnity run-off cover following the closure of her firm in April 2013, despite being required to do so under the SRA Indemnity Insurance Rules. An attempt to secure a waiver from that obligation was refused, but she still failed to pay the premium.

Alongside these findings, the tribunal concluded that King had repeatedly failed to cooperate with the SRA’s investigation. She did not supply documents requested under statutory powers, obstructed inspection attempts, and attempted to argue that she was no longer subject to regulation because she had withdrawn her practising certificate application. The SRA presented evidence that, despite her claims, she had not been removed from the Roll of Solicitors and remained subject to its jurisdiction. The tribunal agreed and dismissed her attempt to argue otherwise.

King’s defence centred on claims that she had been misunderstood during her criminal trial, that she was intimidated in the witness box, and that she believed her refund of practising certificate fees amounted to removal from the roll. She also claimed poor health and financial difficulties, and asserted that her continued pursuit of appeals and applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission demonstrated her belief in her innocence. The tribunal rejected these arguments, noting that her conviction was conclusive evidence of perjury unless and until overturned, and that no exceptional circumstances justified departing from that principle.

In its decision, the tribunal said King’s misconduct represented a grave departure from the standards expected of solicitors. Lying on oath, continuing to act without authorisation, and misleading clients and other lawyers struck at the heart of the profession’s integrity. The panel concluded that nothing short of striking her off the roll would protect the public and maintain trust in the profession.

King was ordered to be struck off the Roll of Solicitors with immediate effect. She was also ordered to pay costs, with the amount to be determined. The case underscores the regulator’s uncompromising stance on dishonesty and unauthorised practice, serving as a reminder that solicitors who flout the core duties of integrity and compliance risk the ultimate professional sanction.