News

Young solicitor who faked documents to hide mistake is struck off

By on
23

She’d only been qualified for three years

A 31-year-old associate has been booted out of the profession by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) for producing misleading insurance documents and faking attendance notes.

Kate Sanderson has been qualified for just three years yet found herself at the SDT’s mercy when she was prosecuted by the regulator, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), in December 2016.

The SRA, represented by senior legal adviser Andrew Bullock at the SDT, claimed the young solicitor resorted to dishonest action when she failed to confirm an increased insurance limit for a case she was working on. When the case was discontinued, Sanderson’s client became liable to pay defendant costs, which were approximately £55,000.

In an attempt to conceal her error, Sanderson was alleged to have created two insurance policy schedules with increased indemnity limits (the insurer denied having agreed to increase the limit). The SRA claimed Sanderson knew, or ought to have known, that these would mislead insurers. It was also alleged Sanderson had made attendance notes for calls that hadn’t taken place and correspondence that had not been sent to try to show she’d secured the increased indemnity.

The Legal Cheek 2018 Firms Most List

Sanderson was working at Express Solicitors at the time, a personal injury outfit in Manchester which deals with medical negligence, work accidents, road accidents and serious injury claims. A formal investigatory meeting was held at the firm in March 2016, at which the respondent denied falsely creating the policies and falsifying letters, emails and telephone notes. When she was contacted by the SRA, Sanderson told them:

“I did not create the policy documents and have no recollection of anything untoward at the time. It would have been of no benefit to me to create such documents.”

But this didn’t quite wash with the SDT. The three-person tribunal found “beyond reasonable doubt” that the policy schedules had been fabricated — and they had some less than complimentary things to say about Sanderson.

Not only did the bench say she “failed to provide direct answers to the questions asked” when giving evidence, it continued:

“Whilst the tribunal accepted that people’s memories fade with time, it noted that even when questioned by her then employers a few months after the event, [she] had been unable to furnish any explanation on the basis that she had little or no recollection of the matter. The tribunal found this to be incredible.”

In mitigation, the SDT did note Sanderson was in the early stages of her career as a solicitor and that she’d claimed to have been unwell at the time. However, it found that her actions were “deliberate, calculated and repeated”, and that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction would be to strike her off. She was ordered to pay £9,000 in costs.

Sanderson is not alone in having been recently struck off the roll by the SDT lately.

In an unrelated matter, Azfar Bajwa, a 45-year-old solicitor who worked at a firm in East London, too found himself before the tribunal. He, according to the SDT, had filed “unarguable and abusive” judicial review claims in a bid to grow his business.

Bajwa, the SDT said, gave “discursive, inconsistent” evidence that “lacked credibility”. His actions “had a significant impact on the judicial system and on the public purse”, and “the harm caused to the reputation of the profession by such conduct was severe”. He was struck off and ordered to pay £37,500 costs.

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek's careers events:

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub

23 Comments

Anonymous

Tragic, and every junior solicitor’s nightmare, but in this case she obviously had to be struck off.

(31)(0)

Anonymous

Although my sympathy is limited, this really demonstrates why senior lawyers need to develop an environment where juniors feel comfortable in admitting their mistakes.

A £55k claim on the professional indemnity insurance wouldn’t exactly have been disastrous…

(52)(0)

Anonymous

No, small beer for most PI insurers and she might not even have been sacked for it.

A shame, but 3 years’ qualified is plenty experienced to know you simply don’t falsify documents – an LPC student should know better. Mystifying that she thought she’d get away with it.

(15)(0)

Anonymous

Yeah exactly, hence my very limited sympathy. Makes me question how she even got that far, thinking that would be okay.

(8)(0)

Anonymous

Express solicitors. Say no more.

(33)(10)

A

Just wonder who showed her how to do it…

(6)(1)

Anonymous

31 is not young

(7)(20)

Westcott

It is if you are over 31.
If you are not, your opinion is irrelevant, child.

(48)(7)

Jonathan

THE SDT needs to be more transparent as an outfit as well. When a solicitor is struck off, please be aware this is not a redundancy, you are taking away an entire career from that person. THE SDT does not have any transcripts and in some respects goes against the values of a any democracy. The SRA is hardly what it is trumped up to be as well and there are enough real life cases that demonstrate large loop wholes in this system…. I now don’t take any of these struck off cases seriously!!!!!

(17)(4)

Hugo van der Meer

Are you legally trained or qualified to comment as with such inexplicable syntax one has ones doubts.

(2)(10)

Anonymous

One has one’s doubts about your punctuation too.

(3)(0)

Anonymous

Why hasn’t action been taken against her principals for lack of oversight?

(17)(1)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(1)(3)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(4)(0)

Anonymous

How did they prove the insurers hadn’t agreed to it? Why was she the dishonest one? Why was the firm so quick to refer her to the SRA?

(2)(6)

Anonymous

Read the judgment. The burden of proof is the balance of probabilities, overwhelmingly satisfied here. In any case, professional disciplinary proceedings have as their principal object the protection of the public, not giving the benefit of the doubt (not that there was any in this instance) to the defendant.

(4)(1)

Anonymous

Just to clarify – the burden of proof in SDT proceedings is still the criminal standard, not civil.

(4)(0)

Anonymous

We’ve all made mistakes and then tried to cover them up. In this case the lawyer went far too far and then went on to deny , deny , deny. She should have “fessed up” earlier and she may then have been suspended instead having been struck off.

(5)(2)

Hugo van der Meer

Speak for yourself.

(1)(4)

Trumpenkrieg

Women needing to be told that they are “young” at 31 lol

You’re not young at 31

(1)(12)

Anonymous

You’ll be juvenile at any age.

(5)(0)

Trumpenkrieg

Bog off.

(0)(6)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(3)(0)

Comments are closed.

Related Stories