SRA bans solicitor Harjit Kang from owning or managing a firm amid ongoing regulatory oversight
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has imposed restrictions on the practising certificate of Harjit Singh Kang, prohibiting him from owning or managing any authorised law firm.
The interim condition, applied on 14 April 2025 and published on 3 October 2025, means Kang cannot act as a manager or owner of any authorised body while continuing to practise as a solicitor. The decision was made under Rule 3.2 of the SRA Regulatory and Disciplinary Procedure Rules, which allows the regulator to impose temporary restrictions where it considers them necessary in the public interest or for the protection of the public.
Kang, solicitor number 158921, was previously the principal of HS Kang & Co, based at 13a Station Parade, Barking, before later working at Lillywhite Williams & Co, 1 Cinema Parade, Whalebone Lane, Dagenham. Both firms are regulated by the SRA.
Embed from Getty Images
The regulator stated that such interim conditions can be imposed “at any stage” of an ongoing investigation or disciplinary process, pending a final decision by the SRA or the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT). The restrictions remain in force until further notice.
The April 2025 order follows a similar restriction issued against Kang in July 2023, when the SRA imposed an identical condition preventing him from acting as a firm manager or owner. That earlier decision, published in August 2023, was described as “reasonable and proportionate” and designed to protect clients and maintain confidence in the profession.
In both cases, the SRA’s conditions were imposed without detailing the underlying concerns but were made under the regulator’s statutory powers to control practice arrangements. Such measures are often used to mitigate potential risks to clients or the public while investigations or regulatory proceedings remain ongoing.
Under the Legal Services Act 2007 and the SRA Authorisation of Individuals Regulations, the regulator may restrict a solicitor’s right to manage or own a practice if it believes the conditions are necessary to uphold the regulatory objectives — including protecting and promoting the interests of consumers, maintaining professional standards, and preserving public trust in the legal profession.
The SRA said: “These conditions are necessary in the public interest or for the protection of the public.”
No further details of the underlying circumstances have been published, and there is no indication that the matter has yet been referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. However, the continuation of the restriction suggests the SRA considers oversight of Kang’s professional activities to remain necessary at this stage.
Kang continues to hold a practising certificate, subject to the stated conditions, and may act as a solicitor within an authorised firm where he is neither an owner nor a manager. The order will remain in force until varied or lifted by the SRA.
The regulator routinely publishes interim conditions to ensure transparency and public accountability in the regulation of legal services. These measures allow solicitors to continue practising while ensuring safeguards are in place to prevent potential risks pending the outcome of ongoing assessments or disciplinary processes.
The SRA has not announced when a final decision in relation to Kang’s case is expected.