Ban for paralegal who misled court over fee payment

By on

‘Altered’ email

A litigation paralegal who misled a court in a bid to prevent her client’s case from being struck out has been barred from working in the legal profession.

Sana Patel, a former employee at Leeds outfit Lowell Solicitors, was dealing with a debt recovery matter on behalf of a client when she discovered an important court fee had not been paid. The court subsequently confirmed the paralegal’s worst fears and that the client’s claim had been struck out.

Patel is then said to have “altered” the contents of an email pertaining to a separate matter in which she had successfully made payment of the court fee, in order to prove the payment had been made.

The court relied on the email, accepting that the court fee had been paid, and reinstated the client’s claim, according to an agreed outcome published by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).

The 2020-21 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

Patel later admitted to altering the email after the firm discovered the court fee had not been paid.

The firm subsequently made an application to the court, explaining the true facts and asked that the matter is struck out. The claim was struck out in November 2019.

Patel has now been hit with a section 43 order, which prevents her from working in a law firm without prior permission from the SRA. She must also pay the regulator’s cost of £300.

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

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub



Time and time again it’s subsequent dishonesty rather than the original mistake that leads to being struck off. Way better to face the music and own up to your firm/client rather than lying.



Indeed. Especially on something like this. Unless there are limitation issues a strike out can be embarrassing but is rarely fatal.


Martin Routh

It’s what professional indemnity insurance exists for. No one is perfect. Spur of the moment dishonesty is bad enough, but fabricating documents really turns the volume up a notch.



When the outcome is a case being dismissed for a silly procedural mistake, it’s easy to see how people may be incentivised to “correct” their mistakes. Fabricating evidence is of course unacceptable.



Cases are not uncommonly struck out as an automatic consequence of “silly mistakes” such as missing deadlines. And equally as often reinstated upon a properly penitent application. Missing a payment is rarely regarded as justifying refusal to reinstate. Of course, the firm would be expected to bear the cost – if only by their client. The problem is that too people are unwilling to admit their mistakes, say sorry, take their reprimand, and resolve to do better. The paralegal’s conduct is in stark contrast to the honourable conduct of her firm.



We’ll bury my big bum at Wounded Knee, why does this KEEP happening to us?



But how many mire claims should be struck out because if she has lied on this one how many more people have to put up with this as courts are just gojng on evidence supplied like a ccj for instance if paperwork not received or responded to judgement by default but there is no court room at county court business centre no judges to sign ccj just an unqualified person who has no legal ir lawful training. But on in a company policecies firms like lowell should be supplying evidence and courts should do tracing of people like traffic enforcement does again not criminal convictions. I myself have had ccj for an account that 1 wasnt mine 2 wasnt my address proof was sent action fraud crime numbrr was given but was told issued by default and result stands so as a result nowof covvid 19 and the fact my business suffered as i needed finance for my business been turned down everywhere due to fraudulent ccj pn account has now had to close a lon standing successful business of over 20 years because according to these companies details are supplied from cra according to cra this info supplied from companies not just lowell who have failed due process and diligence because details are on electoral roll


Duke of Snobford

We normally use English in these comments. Have another shot with Google translate.


Nick Wain

You may have been refused a finance application because on the evidence of the above you are clearly illiterate and may have struggled with the paperwork.


Lord De Ver of Banfields

Dont lie eat pie.


Comments are closed.

Related Stories