SDT rules that Harjit Singh Kang has fully rehabilitated after years under strict practice conditions
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has removed all remaining restrictions on the practice of solicitor Harjit Singh Kang, more than a decade after he was suspended for failing to pay professional indemnity insurance (PII) premiums. The tribunal found that he had taken significant steps to rehabilitate himself and now posed a low risk of future harm.
Mr Kang, formerly the sole principal of HS Kang & Co in Barking, was indefinitely suspended in 2012 after his firm failed to pay its insurance premiums. He subsequently went bankrupt. Five years later, the SDT permitted him to return to legal practice but imposed strict conditions. These prevented him from becoming a sole practitioner, an owner of a law firm, or a compliance officer, and they barred him from holding client money or acting as a signatory on client accounts. Any employment as a solicitor required approval from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
His first attempt to lift those restrictions came in 2021. At that stage, the tribunal considered that he had not yet demonstrated sufficient rehabilitation or shown that he could safely manage a law firm. It stressed that he would need clear evidence of competence before the conditions could be removed.
Embed from Getty Images
In his latest application, Mr Kang acknowledged the shortcomings that had led to the collapse of his former firm, describing how inadequate strategic focus and poor staff supervision contributed to the problems. He said the years of reflection since his misconduct had given him a deeper understanding of his regulatory duties.
The tribunal noted that since beginning work for his current employer in 2015, with SRA approval, he had gained greater insight into compliance and regulatory requirements. He had also shadowed the head of the firm to learn best practice in supervision and management.
Since 2021, he completed the SRA management course, which the tribunal described as an important step in strengthening his understanding of “sound management” and regulatory compliance. It said he had accepted earlier tribunal findings without qualification and had not attempted to minimise the seriousness of his actions. The tribunal recorded: “His failings were his, and his alone.”
The SRA did not oppose his application but adopted a neutral stance. It said its only concern related to the potential risks associated with Mr Kang acting as a sole owner, given his regulatory history, and noted that the tribunal might decide that maintaining restrictions was appropriate.
However, the SDT found that he had met the concerns previously raised and had undertaken “adequate learning” from the courses and experience he had gained. It said he could identify the necessary steps to ensure regulatory compliance and appropriate supervision of staff.
The tribunal concluded that he had “done all that he could in order to rehabilitate himself” since the earlier refusal to lift the conditions. As a result, it granted his application and removed all remaining practice restrictions.
Mr Kang was ordered to pay £1,780 in costs.