![Emily-1[17]](https://d1d8vslyhr7rdg.cloudfront.net/Pictures/274x183/3/1/7/120317_emily117_695594_crop.jpg)
A solicitor whose firm continued to operate months after insurance cover had run out has been struck off the roll. Rajinder Heer was found to have misled the Solicitors Regulation Authority and intervention agents about the status of Kent firm Coventgate Law and said nothing to clients about having any issue with insurance.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal said Heer had known he was not allowed to take new instructions after the firm had ceased to be covered in late 2021.
‘Mr Heer knew the correct position as to his insurance,’ said the SDT ruling. ‘He knew that he was doing work for clients, and he knew that he was telling the SRA that he was complying with his obligations when in fact (as he knew) he was doing the opposite.’
It added: ‘Having told the SRA that he was writing to all his clients, Mr Heer had in fact done nothing of the sort.’
Heer, who did not attend the hearing, was admitted in 2013 and was one of three directors and the main shareholder of Coventgate, which was authorised in 2018.
The firm entered a run-off period in July 2021 and three weeks later Heer told the SRA that he had been unable to secure further insurance and would have to close.
He applied for authorisation for a new entity, Stratford & Park Law Ltd, but this was unsuccessful as the potential firm had no evidence it could obtain PII.
But following a complaint from another firm it emerged that Heer had been acting for a seller in a conveyancing transaction. The SRA found four live matters when the firm was supposed to be closed, including a neighbour dispute and a litigation between a plumbing and heating company. A payment of £600 had been taken when the firm was not supposed to be doing client work.
Heer told the SRA the conveyancing work had been a ‘one-off’ and he had not acted on any other matter. He had told the other firm in the conveyancing matter that he was waiting for his new proposed entity to be authorised and that clients were happy to wait for this.
In reality the application for a new entity had been closed and clients were not made aware there was even any problem.
Heer denied dishonesty and said any omissions were due to a ‘genuine misunderstanding’ about the insurance position. He referred to difficult personal circumstances at the time and that he was ‘completely confused’ about how to interpret the rules.
He was struck off and ordered to pay almost £11,000 in costs.
