5 reviews (5/5) and information for Jung Law Limited, Southall

Home > UK Solicitor > Southall > Jung Law Limited

Add review

5.0 stars average for Jung Law Limited from 5 reviews  
5 Review(s)

0 review(s) removed
Why are reviews removed?


How to find us

41 North Road, Southall, Middlesex, UB1 2JL

Other branches


Facilities Office accepts Legal Aid

Languages spoken English, Gujarati, Hindi, Punjabi, Urdu 
Size of firm 6 solicitors


Are you this solicitor?    
Contact us to take control of your listing or to request any edits to your information

270 page views

All content on solicitor.info is viewed and used at your own risk and we do not warrant the accuracy or reliability of any of the information.


Reviews

5.0 stars average for Jung Law Limited from 5 reviews

Based on 5 review(s)

Add review

Summary

5 stars   1
4 stars   0
3 stars   0
2 stars   0
1 stars   0

Legal services at this branch

  • Advocacy
  • Children
  • Company and commercial
  • Crime - fraud
  • Crime - general
  • Employment
  • Family - general
  • Litigation - general
  • Private client - Probate
  • Private client - trusts
  • Private client - Wills
  • Tax


Add review

Filter Reviews

 


Jung Law Limited

Commercial

5 stars

20/06/20 - Reviewed by Abdikarim

I am going to establish EMI with exchange

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

Respond   Report abuse

Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

13/03/18

Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/378232.article?Decision=2018-03-13

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details



Agreed outcome

1.1 Mr Vikash Dawda, former employee of Jung Law Limited (the Firm), agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):



to the SRA making an order under section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (a Section 43 Order) in relation to him that, from the date of this agreement:

no solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with his practice as a solicitorno employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the solicitor's practiceno recognised body shall employ or remunerate himno manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the business of that bodyno recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to be a manager of the bodyno recognised body or manager or employee of such body shall permit him to have an interest in the body





except in accordance with the SRA's prior permission.

he is rebuked

he is fined ?2,000

to the publication of this agreement

he will pay the costs of the investigation of ?600.



Summary of Facts

2.1 Mr Dawda started working for the Firm in October 2005 as a legal clerk. In January 2013, he was promoted to office manager. As officer manager, he had authority to make bank transfers.

2.2 Between 17 September 2013 and 14 November 2013, Mr Dawda made 74 improper payments from the Firm?s client account to himself. The improper payments were made using the same narrative of ?Daw legal costs sub? and the payments totalled ?201,550. Mr Dawda also accepted eight payments of client money on account of costs between 20 August 2013 and 20 October 2013 which, instead of paying into the Firm?s client account, he took for himself.

2.3 On 14 November 2013, Ms Jung a director at the Firm, met with Mr Dawda and queried the number of payments being made with the same reference of ?Daw legal costs sub?. Mr Dawda subsequently informed Ms Jung that he had borrowed money from the client bank account. Ms Jung dismissed him.

2.4 Mr Dawda?s family repaid to the Firm the money he had taken. By 2 December 2013 all the money which he had improperly taken or withheld from the Firm?s client account had been repaid.

Admissions

3.1 Mr Dawda makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:

3.1.1 that by taking client money and using it for his own benefit he breached:



Principles 2, 6, and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011, and

Rules 1.2(c), 14.1 and 20.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011.



3.1.2 that his conduct as set out above was dishonest

Why the agreed outcome is appropriate

Section 43 Order

4.1 The SRA and Mr Dawda agree that a Section 43 Order is appropriate because:

4.1.1 Mr Dawda is not a solicitor

4.1.2 by virtue of his employment or remuneration at the Firm he was involved in a legal practice

4.1.3 he has occasioned or been party to an act or default in relation to a legal practice. His conduct in relation to that act or default makes it undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice.

4.2 Mr Dawda?s conduct makes it undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice because:



it demonstrates a risk that he may abuse a position of trust to take money belonging to others and use it for his own benefit, and

it was dishonest and therefore demonstrates that he may take advantage of the trust the public places in solicitors and those who work in a solicitor?s practice.



Rebuke and Fine

4.3 The SRA considers that a rebuke and a fine is appropriate because the conditions in Rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:



the conduct caused or had the potential to cause loss or significant inconvenience to others.

the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest, and

the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.



4.4 In deciding that a rebuke and a fine is proportionate, the SRA has considered the admissions made by Mr Dawda and the mitigation which he has put forward, that the monies improperly withdrawn from the Firm have been repaid by his family, and there has been no actual loss to any client of the Firm.

4.5 The amount of the fine takes into account all relevant circumstances, including those set out in Appendix 1 to the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011.

4.6 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement

5.1 Mr Dawda agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying responsibility for the conduct referred to above.

Costs

6.1 Mr Dawda agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?600. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

Respond   Report abuse

Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

13/03/18

Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/378232.article?Decision=2018-03-13

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details
Agreed outcome
1.1 Mr Vikash Dawda, former employee of Jung Law Limited (the Firm), agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

to the SRA making an order under section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (a Section 43 Order) in relation to him that, from the date of this agreement:
no solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with his practice as a solicitor
no employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the solicitor's practice
no recognised body shall employ or remunerate him
no manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the business of that body
no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to be a manager of the body
no recognised body or manager or employee of such body shall permit him to have an interest in the body
except in accordance with the SRA's prior permission.
he is rebuked
he is fined ?2,000
to the publication of this agreement
he will pay the costs of the investigation of ?600.
Summary of Facts
2.1 Mr Dawda started working for the Firm in October 2005 as a legal clerk. In January 2013, he was promoted to office manager. As officer manager, he had authority to make bank transfers.

2.2 Between 17 September 2013 and 14 November 2013, Mr Dawda made 74 improper payments from the Firm?s client account to himself. The improper payments were made using the same narrative of ?Daw legal costs sub? and the payments totalled ?201,550. Mr Dawda also accepted eight payments of client money on account of costs between 20 August 2013 and 20 October 2013 which, instead of paying into the Firm?s client account, he took for himself.

2.3 On 14 November 2013, Ms Jung a director at the Firm, met with Mr Dawda and queried the number of payments being made with the same reference of ?Daw legal costs sub?. Mr Dawda subsequently informed Ms Jung that he had borrowed money from the client bank account. Ms Jung dismissed him.

2.4 Mr Dawda?s family repaid to the Firm the money he had taken. By 2 December 2013 all the money which he had improperly taken or withheld from the Firm?s client account had been repaid.

Admissions
3.1 Mr Dawda makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:

3.1.1 that by taking client money and using it for his own benefit he breached:

Principles 2, 6, and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011, and
Rules 1.2(c), 14.1 and 20.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011.
3.1.2 that his conduct as set out above was dishonest

Why the agreed outcome is appropriate
Section 43 Order
4.1 The SRA and Mr Dawda agree that a Section 43 Order is appropriate because:

4.1.1 Mr Dawda is not a solicitor

4.1.2 by virtue of his employment or remuneration at the Firm he was involved in a legal practice

4.1.3 he has occasioned or been party to an act or default in relation to a legal practice. His conduct in relation to that act or default makes it undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice.

4.2 Mr Dawda?s conduct makes it undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice because:

it demonstrates a risk that he may abuse a position of trust to take money belonging to others and use it for his own benefit, and
it was dishonest and therefore demonstrates that he may take advantage of the trust the public places in solicitors and those who work in a solicitor?s practice.
Rebuke and Fine
4.3 The SRA considers that a rebuke and a fine is appropriate because the conditions in Rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:

the conduct caused or had the potential to cause loss or significant inconvenience to others.
the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest, and
the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.
4.4 In deciding that a rebuke and a fine is proportionate, the SRA has considered the admissions made by Mr Dawda and the mitigation which he has put forward, that the monies improperly withdrawn from the Firm have been repaid by his family, and there has been no actual loss to any client of the Firm.

4.5 The amount of the fine takes into account all relevant circumstances, including those set out in Appendix 1 to the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011.

4.6 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement
5.1 Mr Dawda agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying responsibility for the conduct referred to above.

Costs
6.1 Mr Dawda agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?600. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 1   Thumbs down 0

Respond   Report abuse

Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

26/02/18

Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/176535.article?Decision=2018-02-26

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details



Agreed outcome



1.1 Ms Viney Jung, a solicitor and director of Jung Law Limited (the Firm), agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of her conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):



she is rebuked

she is fined ?1,000

to the publication of this agreement

she will pay the costs of the investigation of ?600.



Summary of Facts

2.1 Ms Jung was the sole owner and is currently a director of the Firm. She is also its Compliance Officer for Finance and Administration (COFA).

2.2 Between 17 September 2013 and 14 November 2013, the Firm?s office manager made 74 improper payments from the Firm?s client account to himself. The improper payments were made using the same narrative ?Daw legal costs sub? and the payments totalled ?201,550. The office manager also accepted eight payments of client money on account of costs between 20 August 2013 and 20 October 2013 which, instead of putting into the Firm?s client account, he took for himself.

2.3 On 14 November 2013 Ms Jung met with the office manager and queried the number of payments being made with the reference of ?Daw legal costs sub?. The office manager informed Ms Jung that he had borrowed money from the client bank account. Ms Jung dismissed the office manager.

2.4 The office manager?s family repaid to the Firm the money he had taken. By 2 December 2013 all the money which the office manager had improperly taken or withheld from the firm?s client account had been repaid.

2.5 Ms Jung did not report the matter to the SRA, the Firm?s insurers or the Police.

Admissions

3.1 Ms Jung admits, and the SRA accepts that, by failing to report to the SRA that her office manager had improperly taken a large sum of client money, she:



breached Principle 7 of the SRA Principles 2011

failed to achieve Outcome 10.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011, and

breached Rule 8.5(e)(iii) of the SRA Authorisation Rules 2011.



Why the agreed outcome is appropriate

4.1 The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate because the conditions in Rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:



the conduct related to a failure or refusal to recognise or comply with Ms Jung?s regulatory obligations

the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest

the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.



4.2 In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has considered the admissions made by Ms Jung and the following mitigation which she has put forward that, upon discovery of the problem she acted promptly to replace the missing money.

4.3 The amount of the fine takes into account all relevant circumstances, including those set out in Appendix 1 to the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011.

4.4 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.

Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement

5.1 Ms Jung agrees that she will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

5.2 If Ms Jung acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be considered further by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary outcome or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

Costs

6.1 Ms Jung agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?600. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

Respond   Report abuse

Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

26/02/18

Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/176535.article?Decision=2018-02-26

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details
Agreed outcome
1.1 Ms Viney Jung, a solicitor and director of Jung Law Limited (the Firm), agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of her conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

she is rebuked
she is fined ?1,000
to the publication of this agreement
she will pay the costs of the investigation of ?600.
Summary of Facts
2.1 Ms Jung was the sole owner and is currently a director of the Firm. She is also its Compliance Officer for Finance and Administration (COFA).

2.2 Between 17 September 2013 and 14 November 2013, the Firm?s office manager made 74 improper payments from the Firm?s client account to himself. The improper payments were made using the same narrative ?Daw legal costs sub? and the payments totalled ?201,550. The office manager also accepted eight payments of client money on account of costs between 20 August 2013 and 20 October 2013 which, instead of putting into the Firm?s client account, he took for himself.

2.3 On 14 November 2013 Ms Jung met with the office manager and queried the number of payments being made with the reference of ?Daw legal costs sub?. The office manager informed Ms Jung that he had borrowed money from the client bank account. Ms Jung dismissed the office manager.

2.4 The office manager?s family repaid to the Firm the money he had taken. By 2 December 2013 all the money which the office manager had improperly taken or withheld from the firm?s client account had been repaid.

2.5 Ms Jung did not report the matter to the SRA, the Firm?s insurers or the Police.

Admissions
3.1 Ms Jung admits, and the SRA accepts that, by failing to report to the SRA that her office manager had improperly taken a large sum of client money, she:

breached Principle 7 of the SRA Principles 2011
failed to achieve Outcome 10.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011, and
breached Rule 8.5(e)(iii) of the SRA Authorisation Rules 2011.
Why the agreed outcome is appropriate
4.1 The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate because the conditions in Rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:

the conduct related to a failure or refusal to recognise or comply with Ms Jung?s regulatory obligations
the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest
the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.
4.2 In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has considered the admissions made by Ms Jung and the following mitigation which she has put forward that, upon discovery of the problem she acted promptly to replace the missing money.

4.3 The amount of the fine takes into account all relevant circumstances, including those set out in Appendix 1 to the SRA Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2011.

4.4 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement

5.1 Ms Jung agrees that she will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.

5.2 If Ms Jung acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be considered further by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary outcome or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

Costs
6.1 Ms Jung agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of ?600. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 1

Respond   Report abuse

Subscribe to updates

Complete the form below to be notified of new reviews or responses added for this solicitor.


terms of use

Enter this code » Verify

Related links

About us
Legal info
For Solicitors
FAQ
28885 solicitor reviews

4,351,089 page views