Gurbinder Singh
Sangha
Solicitor
529833
Decision - Sanction
Outcome: Rebuke
Outcome date: 3 August 2026
Published date: 7 September 2026
Firm details
Firm or organisation at date of publication and at time of matters giving rise to outcome
Name: Coventry City Council
Address(es): Legal Services, PO BOX 15, Council House, COVENTRY, WEST MIDLANDS, CV1 5RR
Firm ID: 65689
Outcome details
This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
Decision details
Who does this disciplinary decision relate to?
Gurbinder Singh Sangha (Mr Sangha) is a solicitor. He is employed as an in-house solicitor by Coventry City Council, where he works as the Corporate and Commercial Lead.
Short summary of decision
We have issued Mr Sangha with a rebuke following a conviction for failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis when suspected of having been in charge of a vehicle contrary to section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. It was found that by virtue of the circumstances surrounding his conviction that Mr Sangha committed professional misconduct in breach of the professional standards set out in Principle 1 and 2 of the SRA Principles 2019.
Facts of the misconduct
On 11 February 2025, police officers were called to Maynard Avenue, Warwick. The police officers suspected that Mr Sangha had been in charge of a vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol. Mr Sangha was arrested and conveyed to Leamington Spa Police Station where he was required to provide two specimens of breath for analysis. He was warned that a failure to do so could result in a prosecution. He did not provide a specimen of breath for analysis. On 28 February 2025, Mr Sangha attended Warwickshire Magistrates Court and pleaded guilty to and was convicted of an offence of failing to provide a specimen for analysis whilst in charge of a vehicle, without a reasonable excuse, contrary to section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. He was disqualified from driving for six months, sentenced to a financial penalty of £923, and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £369 and contribution towards prosecution costs of £85. Mr Sangha breached Principles 1 and 2 of the SRA Principles 2019. By failing to provide a specimen of breath when lawfully required to do so by the police, he failed to uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice. His conduct also failed to uphold public trust and confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services.
Decision on sanction
It was decided that a rebuke was an appropriate and proportionate sanction. Mr Sangha was issued with a written rebuke and ordered to pay costs of £600. This was because Mr Sangha's conduct was serious by reference to the following factors in the SRA Enforcement Strategy and the SRA's topic guides on 'Convictions for driving with excess alcohol', 'Criminal offences outside of practice', 'A guide to the application of Principle 1' and the SRA guidance 'Public trust and confidence':
- Mr Sangha failed to provide specimens of breath when lawfully required to do so by the police during a criminal investigation. That failure interfered with the proper administration of justice and placed him in breach of Principle 1 of the SRA Principles 2019.
- Mr Sangha was warned of the consequences of failing to provide the specimens but did not do so. His conduct resulted in a criminal conviction and amounted to a failure to cooperate with the lawful exercise of police powers. This fell below the standards expected of a solicitor and failed to uphold public trust and confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services, placing him in breach of Principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019.
- A rebuke was required because the misconduct was too serious for no action, advice or a warning. A public sanction was necessary to mark the seriousness of the conviction, uphold public confidence in the delivery of legal services and maintain proper professional standards.
A more serious sanction was not considered to be proportionate in light of the mitigating factors:
- Mr Sangha pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity accepting responsibility for the offence.
- Mr Sangha has no relevant regulatory history. This was an isolated incident and there is a low risk of repetition.
- He promptly self-reported his conviction to the SRA and provided positive character references.
SRA Principles breached SRA Principles 2019
Principle 1: You must act in a way that upholds the constitutional principle of the rule of law, and the proper administration of justice.
Principle 2: You must act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons.