Harpreet Singh
Nijjar
Non-lawyer manager
7265906
Decision - Employee-related decision
Outcome: Control of non-qualified staff (Section 43 / Section 99 order)
Outcome date: 27 April 2026
Published date: 30 April 2026
Firm details
Firm or organisation at time of matters giving rise to outcome
Name: BGM Law Ltd
Address(es): 21 Ellis Street, London, SW1X 9AL
Firm ID: 835550
Outcome details
This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
Decision details
Who does this decision relate to?
Harpreet Singh Nijjar, who is not a solicitor, was an owner and manager at BGM Law Ltd whose head office is at Level 1 Devonshire House, One Mayfair Place, Mayfair, London W1J 9AJ and/or at 21 Ellis Street, London SW1X 9AL between October 2024 and June 2025.
Summary of decision
A finding of dishonesty was made against Mr Nijjar and he was made subject to a disqualification order under section 99 of the Legal Services Act 2007.
The SRA has disqualified Mr Nijjar from holding any of the following roles in law firms regulated by the SRA:
- Head of Legal Practice
- Head of Finance and Administration
- A manager
- An employee
Our decision on sanction
Mr Nijjar's conduct breached relevant duties that applied to him as an owner and manager of the firm, namely the SRA Accounts Rules 2019, the SRA Authorisation of Firm Rules 2019, the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms 2019 and the SRA Principles 2019.
It was found that it would be undesirable for Mr Nijjar to act as a Head of Legal Practice, Head of Finance and Administration, a manager or an employee of a body licensed in accordance with section 99 of the Legal Services Act 2007.
Mr Nijjar was disqualified from holding any of these roles.
He was also directed to pay costs of £1,350.
Reasons/basis
The facts of the case
Mr Nijjar was owner and manager of the firm, which was a licensed body. The SRA decided to intervene into the firm on 25 June 2025. The intervention was on the grounds that the firm and its managers had failed to comply with the terms of the firm’s licence and that it was necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients.
It was found that:
Allegation One
- Mr Nijjar acquired BGM without notifying and seeking the prior approval of the SRA of his intention to do so and in doing so breached Paragraph 3.8 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms.
Allegation Two
- Mr Nijjar acted as a manager and owner of BGM from 10 October 2024 to 25 June 2025 without firstly being authorised by the SRA to do so and in doing so breached Rules 9.1 and 9.4 of the SRA Authorisation of Firms Rules
Allegation Three
- Mr Nijjar caused or allowed BGM to be used as a vehicle for fraud and in doing so breached Principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019, Paragraphs 1.4, 5.2 and 8 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms and Rule 1 of the SRA Accounts Rules.
Allegation Four
- Mr Nijjar failed to cooperate with the SRA in its investigation into BGM and in doing so breached paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms.
Allegation Five
- Mr Nijjar failed to have PII in place for BGM and in doing so breached Rule 2.1 of the SRA Indemnity Insurance Rules.