Law grad who completed TC barred after working as solicitor without roll admission

Avatar photo

By Lydia Fontes on

18

Worked unqualified for three weeks

Tribunal sign
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has barred a law graduate from working in legal practice without its prior approval, after she spent several weeks working as a solicitor despite not being admitted to the roll.

Kashine Taylor was a law graduate who had completed her training when she secured employment as a solicitor with Derbyshire County Council. She told the council that she was still waiting for the SRA to email her practising certificate to her, according to the public decision.

The law grad later claimed that she had not been aware that she needed to apply for a practising certificate, despite the fact that she had previously made two applications to be admitted to the roll. She worked as a solicitor from 4 March 2024 to 27 March when she knew she was unqualified to do so, the SRA said.

The 2025 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

Separately, in September 2023, Taylor told law firm Eliot Mather that the reason her admission to the roll and the issuance of her practising certificate was delayed was the fault of the SRA, despite the fact that she had not yet made an application to be admitted to the roll.

The SRA served Taylor with a section 43 order, barring her from working for any law firm in England and Wales without the SRA’s permission. She was also ordered to pay the SRA’s costs of £1,350.

18 Comments

Frances

It’s almost as if the SRA doesn’t have any important matters to deal with…

Confused trainee

I’ve always felt the SRA and SDT can be unduly harsh on junior lawyers & unduly lenient with senior lawyers. But this, this right here, is an audacious form of stupidity. Did she think she wasn’t going to get caught out on her lies eventually? How do you manage to lose the right to practice as a solicitor, before even acquiring it? Her actions were silly on all levels

Anonymous

You have just destroyed her life after she has spent years studying law.you evil controlling tyrants

Sebastian

This is absolutely ridiculous.

What an insanely disproportionate outcome.

Disgusting

This is completely ridiculous and is disproportionate in every possible way – she was already fully qualified – and was only missing a practicing certificate. There were no additional qualifications required, in her case, to obtain a practicing certificate!

Yes she was dishonest in blaming the SRA, but this does not warrant this disgusting outcome.

Confused

No practice certificate means she was practising without the permission of the SRA.

The sanction = “You cannot practice without our permission.”

That is the same as the offence!

Hugh

I felt during the whole ‘application’ part of getting qualified and registering with the SRA that they could do a better job with letting us know certain deadlines are coming up or reminders that you have not done a certain part or didn’t make this application yet.

I will be honest, I almost messed it up myself, that I forgot to apply/register for something, which I forget what it was. When I realised and did apply, SRA said it would take 4-6 weeks which would have ran past my training period, but in the end it turned out fine. It was borderline though.

we all make mistakes in the heat of passion Jimbo.

Scouser of Counsel

F-ing ridiculous.

The BSB would probably issue a warning letter with no costs for this sort of thing.

Sober as a Judge

The SRA are all about the 💰 and no longer fit for purpose.

K

The bit about her applying twice – was that made up? How did she apply twice and not hear back? What was she covering up?

Jony Knobjock

An outright ban seems very harsh indeed.

TrainHopper123

Wow, trully an amazing job by the SRA, ruining people’s careers and trust in the profession for – no reason at all. Hatts off to the big wiggs that took this outragously ridiculous decision, perhaps they are looking in the wrong place for solicitors who need to be struck off and should instead be looking in the mirror.

Alan

She ruined her own career

Edum

My poor puppy!

Professor Numbnuts will make it all better!

Anonymous

This is a ridiculous decision from an employment and general public policy perspective. Her new employer should have managed this more carefully with her (they were aware she did not currently have a practising certificate). They should have restricted her from using the title “solicitor” or doing any reserved legal activity until she produced the practising certificate. Additionally, her training principal should have offered more support to her in actually obtaining the certificate.

Sure, she should have been honest about it and refrained from yet calling herself a “solicitor”. But she clearly didn’t get the right support from those who are responsible for her employment.

The SRA are so dumb to do this and ruin someone’s career over it. There was no harm done. “Unqualified” people provide legal services (albeit “unreserved”) all of the time which is perfectly legal. Everyone involved should have just used their brains.

Andrew Evans

On the face of it it seems unduly harsh. The SRA come down very heavily on trainees, paralegals and junior lawyers, but less heavily on senior lawyers and partners except in the case of outright theft.

Galabobo

Punishment is not targeted at her, it’s a ‘preemptive strike’ on any newly qualified solicitor who ‘forgets’ to apply for practice permission. Sledgehammer and a fly comes to mind!

Michael

It would be better served if the the Law society managed to solicitors, as the SRA have a track record for going about things heavy-handed. Maybe the Law society could collaborate with the Bar council in order to get us the lawyers that are are required for the industry. They have destroyed the careers of many lawyers that the industry sorely needs.

Join the conversation