Solicitor who used explicit images of ‘vulnerable’ female client he was helping with revenge porn case for his own ‘sexual gratification’ is struck off

A lawyer who used photographs of a ‘vulnerable’ female client for his own ‘sexual gratification’ in pursuing a future relationship has been disbarred.

Sunny Sidhu, 35, convinced the anonymous woman to send sexually explicit images of herself saying they were necessary for legal reasons in the case of a revenge porn case as he was advising her on a divorce.

Disciplinary tribunal documents show that ‘person A’ had sought ‘protection measures for herself and her children’ in November 2020, when she was advised by Sidhu, then of LDJ Solicitors in Warwickshire.

During the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal hearing, Sidhu, in his role as adviser, asked his client whether she had previously shared explicit photos with her husband.

After Person A said this was the case, the lawyer told her to send them to him for protection from revenge porn.

Pictured: The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, where lawyer Sonny Sidhu, 35, was suspended for getting a client to send him explicit images with the promise that they would be used in the event of a revenge porn attack

Person A described the breakdown of her marriage as “physical, psychological and financial abuse.” Before the divorce, she also discovered that her husband was also abusing their daughter, for which he was later criminally charged.

Sidhu, then 32, asked Person A to send him explicit images she had sent to her husband to his personal WhatsApp, adding that he needed them to support an application for a non-abuse order.

However, the footage was never transferred from Sidhu’s mobile phone to his company’s case management system, despite assurances to the contrary, the tribunal heard.

Court documents from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) show that Sidhu ‘did not legitimately pursue a non-abuse order on behalf of his client’, and that the instructions were given ‘for his own sexual gratification’.

The papers added: ‘In doing so he had taken advantage of a person he knew was vulnerable.’

Although Sidhu denied obtaining the images for his own gratification, the London tribunal found him dishonest and said he was guilty of ‘clearly inappropriate’ and ‘clearly sexually motivated’ behaviour.

“There was no credible motivation for the respondent to request explicit images of Person A other than in the pursuit of sexual gratification or in the pursuit of a future sexual relationship,” the report said.

‘[Sidhu] used his position as an attorney to request and receive these images, which was an abuse of his position.”

As well as being struck off, Sidhu was ordered to cover the SRA’s costs of £32,394.72.