Solicitor who juggled jobs at three law firms struck off

Avatar photo

By Legal Cheek on

3

‘Misleading timesheets’


A solicitor who took multi-tasking to the next level by working for three law firms at the same time has been struck off the roll.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) heard that Belinda Owusuah Sarkodie had submitted timesheets claiming payment for the same hours on the same dates from two law firms where she was contracted as a locum solicitor. At the time, she was also held a “substantive” role at a third outfit.

An investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) found that that there was a crossover period from 29 June 2021 to 16 July 2021 Sarkodie was carrying out work for all three firms on a remote basis.

Sarkodie, who qualified in 2020, worked full-time for South West London conveyancing specialist Muve from May to September 2021. During this period, she was also contracted by PLS Solicitors in Manchester between 17 June and 16 July, and by Wright & Lord, a firm based in Morecambe, from 29 June to 30 July.

The 2025 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

The allegations against Sarkodie included that she had submitted “misleading timesheets” to request payment and had “misled” her main employer into believing she was working exclusively for them, while simultaneously holding other roles elsewhere.

The solicitor argued that she had not knowingly done anything wrong and had worked hard in each of her roles, claiming that the timesheets had been approved and all parties were satisfied with them.

She also submitted in mitigation that she had acted transparently, claiming that the recruitment agencies were aware of her practising arrangements and that everything had been above board. She further highlighted her innate work ethic, which enabled her to manage multiple roles and work long hours.

The tribunal found that her evidence “lacked credibility”, according to the published ruling.

Sarkodie was struck off and ordered to pay costs of £8,900.

3 Comments

Deepak

I think a decision, so serious, as to struck off someone who had spent many years studying, training and qualifying with years of hard works and spent thousands of pounds in the process, is grossly unjustified just because they worked ‘more’. It is entirely possible if you are working remotely, you can do it outside the normal working hours in the evening, late night, early morning or weekend.

As long as the work is done properly and competently, why anyone shouldn’t be paid? This particular individual might be under financial pressures or had other reasons to work ‘more’. Even if she was in breach of the contract with her ‘main’ employers for working with other firms, to me it can never justify such a grave punishment as striking off from the roll.

It appears that she was not legally represented at the SDT hearing. There may be grounds to challenge it.

Chris

Dear Deepak,

I have empathy with your comments, however- The work was NOT done properly and competently – The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) report states:

‘The firms “expressed dissatisfaction with her output and performance” – she was “not readily contactable whilst working remotely, clients had complained and unsatisfactory work that ought to have to have been completed by the respondent (and for which [she] was remunerated) was subsequently redone by other members of staff”.’

In addition there is an issue of honesty and integrity and potential deception as the SDT stated:

‘Timesheets claimed for the same time from two different firms.’

The SDT found that the timesheets she submitted to both PLS and Wright & Lord showed that she had claimed for “the same hours, on the same days” from both firms.

Ms Sarkodie said she moved between tasks for each firm throughout the day, describing the timesheets as accurate as to the total hours worked overall, rather than an accurate record of the time spent on a particular working day for each firm.

The SDT rejected this explanation and found she had acted dishonestly.

Michael

I agree with Deepak. The Solicitor could have been reprimanded, fined or even suspended for a period but striking off should be reserved for the worst cases and this, from what I have read, was not one such.

Join the conversation