A criminal defence solicitor has been punished after a tribunal found he bullied and harassed junior female staff, including by asking intrusive questions about pregnancy and disciplining employees for failing to bring sweets into the office. The case centred on John Navani, a co-founder and partner at Criminal Defence Solicitors LLP, and allegations from five women who complained about his conduct over several years.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal said Navani’s behaviour crossed the line into professional misconduct in a number of respects. It ordered a one-year suspension, but suspended that sentence for two years, and also banned him from conducting interviews and disciplinary meetings for two years.
Complaints from five women
The allegations came from five female staff members, identified in the tribunal report as Persons A to E. They described a workplace where Navani used humiliating language, made personal comments, and exercised pressure over junior colleagues in ways the tribunal said were not acceptable.
At the start of the process, Navani denied the claims and suggested the women had colluded. During the hearing, however, he shifted position and argued the behaviour did not amount to professional misconduct.
Finger clicking, shouting and abuse
One of the most serious complaints came from Person A, who said Navani clicked his fingers at her, pointed at her and shouted across the office while she was on a client call. She said he used abusive language and ended her call.
Other complainants said he snapped his fingers and shouted “oi” to get their attention. The tribunal accepted many of Person A’s allegations, although it did not find every reported incident met the misconduct threshold.
Treats, sweets and disciplinary pressure
A recurring theme in the evidence was Navani’s fixation on staff bringing sweets into the office. Person A said she returned from holiday without any treats and was then called to a disciplinary meeting about it, after which she received an official warning.
Person B said Navani asked whether she had brought back treats when she returned to work after her grandfather’s funeral. Person D recalled a similar reaction after time off to visit ill grandparents, saying he immediately asked: “Where are the treats?”
Pregnancy questions and personal remarks
The tribunal also heard that Navani repeatedly raised questions about pregnancy and family plans. Person D said he asked during her interview whether she had a boyfriend, whether she planned to marry, and when she would go on maternity leave.
Person A said that when she explained a hospital visit was for fertility treatment, Navani remarked that “at least you won’t need to take maternity leave.” The tribunal found this pattern of questioning and comment deeply inappropriate.
More allegations about conduct at work
Person C said Navani described an applicant as “very sexy” and said he was “always looking for a wife.” She also recalled him calling an intern a “massive airhead” and making insulting remarks about university graduates from Hatfield.
The tribunal found that Navani told her to use make-up on eczema he described as “disgusting,” and asked whether it was “catchy.” It also heard that he gave her two boxes of “Well Woman 70+” vitamins after she disclosed medical issues, which she experienced as humiliating.
Comments outside the workplace
The evidence also covered a visit to Navani’s flat after the firm’s Christmas party. Person E said she felt unable to refuse because of his influence over her career, and described him dimming the lights, offering her a drink and suggesting meditation.
She said he later asked her to help put his son to bed and suggested she could be a “live-in nanny.” She also alleged that he asked for a hug and a kiss as she tried to leave.
Navani disputed that account and said Person E had visited to fix his phone and that he had wanted her to leave. The tribunal rejected that version, saying it “lacked plausibility and did not withstand scrutiny.”
Tribunal sanction and costs
The tribunal said Navani should be suspended for one year, but it suspended that sanction for two years. It also barred him from interviewing job candidates and from holding disciplinary meetings during that period.
In addition, the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s application for Navani to pay costs of £164,000 will go through a detailed assessment, leaving the final figure still to be decided.
Read more at: www.rollonfriday.com
