A conveyancing paralegal has been barred from working in legal practice, with her “deliberate dishonesty” cited as the aggravating feature, whilst her fee earner line manager has been cleared of any wrongdoing.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard that solicitor Joanne Elizabeth Tappin and paralegal Ria Lakhani, then at Mackrell Solicitors, were alleged to have made misleading representations during the course of two separate conveyancing transactions in October 2021.
Lakhani’s employment contract with the firm was terminated five days after the second transaction on the grounds of gross misconduct.
Both respondents provided conflicting accounts to the tribunal in relation to the two transactions.
In the first transaction, a property sale was completed without a grant of probate for one of the deceased co-owners. The contract and transfer documents incorrectly named the deceased individuals as sellers.
It was alleged that an email was sent by Lakhani to the buyer’s solicitors falsely claiming that the signed transfer had been lost in the post and that a fresh deed was awaited. The email omitted that probate had not yet been granted and was allegedly drafted with Tappin’s involvement and sent with her approval.
Tappin, a solicitor within Mackrell’s property department from April 2021 until March 2022, denied authorising the misleading email and claimed that Lakhani acted against her instructions. She said she believed the necessary documents were in place before exchange and accepted that she did not check the contract or TR1 thoroughly and acknowledged this as an oversight.
Tappin denied blaming the Lakhani for the subsequent error, describing it as a “miscommunication compounded by departmental pressures”.
In the second transaction, it was alleged that Lakhani emailed a client, falsely stating that the buyer’s solicitors had misplaced the signed transfer deed. It was further alleged that in reality, no such deed had ever been executed or sent and the misrepresentation was intended to induce the client to sign a new transfer without questioning the delay. The paralegal claimed she was acting under Tappin’s supervision and in accordance with her instructions.
It was alleged that Tappin, who is now employed at Pinney Talfourd LLP, was aware of the situation and approved of Lakhani’s communication. However the solicitor, who was admitted to the roll in 2012, denied knowledge that the client email was misleading and maintained that she believed the transfer had been signed and sent.
On the third day of the hearing, Lakhani notified the tribunal of her withdrawal from the proceedings, stating that she felt overwhelmed and distressed and was concerned about cross-examining her former line manager, a vulnerable witness, without representation. The paralegal took no further part in proceedings.
The tribunal, which lasted for six days, made no sanctions against Tappin as the allegations against her were dismissed.
Taking into account both parties’ limited financial means, the tribunal adjusted the costs of £54,147.50, ordering that Tappin paid £10,000 and Lakhani £4,500.
It has been reported that Lakhani, who is currently working in legal recruitment, will appeal the decision.
2 responses
Paralegals have a Professional Code of Conduct.
Much conflict, stress, miscommunication, mistakes and loss of jobs/business/income can be avoided by regular consultation of our Professional Code of Conduct!
A lot of forms employ people and calls them paralegals and pass on too much responsibility on to them, and ultimately do not take any responsibility when things go wrong by saying they did not know anything about it. I would suggest that all work should be supervised by the solicitor, which obviously didn’t happen in this case