A banned solicitor who waited 21 years to attempt a return has been told he cannot rejoin the profession. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal said it was concerned that Minesh Ruparelia had not addressed the crux of his original misconduct and would not be adequately supervised in the role he wanted to take up.
Ruparelia was struck off in 2001 for making improper withdrawals from his firm’s client account, failing to cooperate with the regulator and producing misleading accounts. There were no findings of dishonesty.
But this did not signal the end of his legal career. After a spell in car sales, he started work as an immigration clerk in the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner and then in 2011 started trading in the firm Just Legal Group, where he was sole director.
He advised in all aspects of immigration and asylum and was also authorised by the Ministry of Justice to conduct employment law matters. He continues to be inspected by the OISC and MoJ and no issues have arisen since.
Ruparelia had met Trushar Punatar, sole shareholder of north London practice Punatar & Company Solicitors, more than 20 years ago and had since made two unsuccessful applications for permission to be employed with the firm as a legal clerk.
Now Punatar, a criminal specialist, wanted Ruparelia to move to London and help set up an immigration practice in his firm as an assistant solicitor.
Ruparelia submitted that going back through his strike-off judgment now felt like ‘reading about someone else’. He did not recognise that person and said he had been young and unwilling to accept what he was doing was wrong.
Now he stated he had a ‘proven track record’ in immigration over 11 years, backed by a host of testimonials, and insisted he was fit to return to the profession. Punatar also gave evidence to the tribunal, saying his prospective employee would be fully supervised and would not be able to accept or hold client money.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority opposed the application, albeit accepting that Ruparelia had waited many years to ask for a return and had undertaken training. But the regulator said that it did not have ‘fully confidence’ in Ruparelia’s rehabilitation.
The tribunal was ‘troubled’ by the lack of potential oversight, given he would be the firm’s only immigration fee earner. There would be no-one more senior in the department and ‘identifiable concerns’ remained about Ruparelia’s fitness and propriety. His application was refused and he was ordered to pay £2,067 costs.
