Creepy pic

Out of order

A solicitor has been struck off for tricking a vulnerable client into sending sexually explicit photos of herself to his mobile phone, claiming that they were needed to obtain a court order.

Sunny Sidhu worked at LDJ Solicitors in Warwickshire at the time of the incident. He acted for a woman, referred to as 'Person A' in the tribunal's decision, for her divorce proceedings and attempts to obtain prohibitive steps against her ex-husband.

Sidhu asked Person A if she had ever sent any explicit photos or videos of herself to her ex-husband, and the woman confirmed that she had done so. 

The lawyer told the woman that she was at risk of being the victim of revenge porn by her ex-husband, and stated that he needed all the sexual photos and videos she had ever sent her ex-husband, in case they were uploaded to a website.  

He also said that if he did not receive the images, then it would be impossible to prove that such photographs and videos were of her, if her ex-husband uploaded them, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard.

Person A said she didn't really understand how revenge porn worked, but that she trusted Sidhu. The lawyer repeatedly asked for the woman to send him the explicit photos and videos, according to the SRA's case to the tribunal. 

Person A said she felt uncomfortable with the requests, and initially made excuses not to send the images. However, the tribunal heard that the solicitor persisted, stating that her ex-husband would use revenge porn as his next move. 

Eventually, the woman sent between ten and twenty explicit images of herself via WhatsApp to the lawyer's personal telephone number (although he did not reveal it was his a non-work phone). Sidhu said he would upload the images to a secure file on the firm’s case management system and they would then be deleted from the phone. He also asked the woman to look through old phone to see if she could find any other similar images. 

The woman said at that time in her life she "felt useless" and "not qualified to make decisions for her own life" and was "compliant with anyone that had authority over her", and trusted her lawyer.

Some time later, the woman called LDJ Solicitors and asked to speak to Sidhu. However, she was told he had left the firm. Person A asked who had access to the "secure folder" with the explicit images, but a secretary said she was unaware of such a folder. The firm and Person A reported the matter to the SRA. 

At the tribunal hearing, Sidhu argued that he had requested the images to prepare for a non-molestation order, but denied that he had made the request multiple times. He said that he had not been able to upload the images from his WhatsApp to the firm's case management system, and stated that he had deleted the images from his phone.

The tribunal noted that Sidhu's arguments appeared "confused and non-sensical" when he was cross-examined. The tribunal found that there was no credible motivation for the solicitor to request the explicit images from Person A other than for his own sexual gratification. 

"The failure to make attendance notes and his failure to tell Person A that he had not uploaded the images to the case management system were designed to conceal the misconduct," stated the tribunal.

The SDT struck Sidhu off the roll, finding that he had "taken advantage" of the woman, a vulnerable person, who he had "deliberately targeted." 

The tribunal also ordered that Sidhu pay costs of £32,400.

    LU icon Firms ping LawyerUp when they like you for a role. It's available on the App Store and Google Play.

Tip Off ROF


Anonymous 07 June 24 09:35

Strange one. Not clear from the article, but is there any evidence that he requested the pictures for sexual gratification? There could be other reasons.

Anonymous 07 June 24 10:01

"is there any evidence that he requested the pictures for sexual gratification? There could be other reasons."

Yes. It's perplexing that his solicitor didn't raise the defence that he only wanted them to use for collage making and origami modelling. So I suppose that we'll never really know the truth.

Anonymous 07 June 24 10:18

@10.01 - no, but there was an actual defence raised as to why he asked for them. The question is what consideration was given to that defence. So I suppose you don't really know the truth if you haven't considered this and have only considered a defence of collage or origami.

Anonymous 07 June 24 12:40

@11.37 - yes, one can see from that why they reached the decision they did (although one wonders if they would have reached the same conclusion had it been a female solicitor). The question was valid though, as the article didn't make it clear how the decision was reached and these tribunals do have a reputation for being a bit mucky minded.


You might want to refer the 'listlessly speculating' comment to 10.01 though, otherwise you look biased.

Anonymous 07 June 24 13:01

@12.26 - yes, that's because he hasn't been found guilty of any wrongdoing by the BSB.

Anonymous 07 June 24 14:50

Ah, the Lester Conundrum raises its head again. 

Everyone, bar a very small handful of persistent commenters, seems to agree that he was cleared of all wrongdoing by the BSB. 

But why? What drives them to insist on the guilt of such a noble man, years after his death, and in spite of his thorough and unequivocal exoneration?

Will we ever get to the bottom of it, do you think?

Anon 07 June 24 16:00

@Lord Lester 07 June 24 12:26: Sunny and old Mo Lester would certainly both get on well, given their predilection for creepy conduct!

Lord Lester 07 June 24 18:07

Anon 07 June 24 16:00 - I am the King of Creep! Am ermine-clad creepmeister! A peer who's a creep and a creep without peer!

Lord Lester 07 June 24 18:53

Anonymous 07 June 24 14:50 - no conundrum! I was not cleared by the BSB! Unfortunately, the BSB had no jurisdiction to do so! 

It's always Sunny in Nuneaton 08 June 24 21:27

It was a typo - Sunny actually meant "send dudes". He was collecting pictures of Jeff Bridges in The Big Lebowski. Easy mistake to make. We've all done it.

Lord Lester 11 June 24 09:19

Anonymous 09 June 24 16:29 - I am always partial to a bottom, whether rank or otherwise!

Anon 11 June 24 09:23

Lord Lester 09 June 24 07:00 - absolutely! Lord Lester, not so much a member of the peerage as a member of the leerage!

Lord Lester 13 June 24 07:09

Sir Woke XR Remainer FBPE MBE 08 June 24 10:25: yes, it was grim that I sexually harassed a victim of a forced marriage.