Didn’t issue claim
A paralegal has been barred from working in the legal profession after admitting he sent “wrong and misleading” information to a client about the status of their personal injury claim, while a separate issue involving another client was uncovered only after his dismissal.
Waseem Hussain, who worked as a paralegal in Irwin Mitchell’s international serious injury team between April 2023 and December 2024, told Client A in July 2024 that their case had been issued at court, despite knowing this was untrue, according to a decision published by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
In the email sent on 11 July 2024, Hussain wrote: “I can also confirm that the papers have been submitted to the Courts on the 8 July. We will now wait for the Court to issue a notice of issue which means the claim has been issued and the claim will enter the litigation process.”
When the client later complained about a lack of progress, a review by his supervisor found “no evidence to show the claim had been issued or that any documents had been submitted to Court” at the time, the SRA said.
Hussain subsequently admitted to his supervisor that the email was “wrong and misleading” and said he had sent it to “appease the client”. He was dismissed following a disciplinary hearing.
It was only after his dismissal that a second client, Client B, raised concerns in March 2025. Irwin Mitchell investigated and found that Hussain had emailed Client B on 1 November 2024 stating he had contacted a medico-legal expert to obtain medical records and instruct an expert. The firm “found no evidence” that this had been done, according to the regulator.
Hussain admitted to the SRA that his conduct toward Client A, and the misleading information sent to Client B, was dishonest. He accepted that his behaviour made it “undesirable for him to continue to be involved in legal practice”.
The SRA imposed a Section 43 order, which prevents him from being employed by any SRA-regulated firm without prior permission. He must also pay £300 towards the cost of the investigation.
In mitigation, Hussain said he had experienced a period off work that resulted in a “significant backlog”, and that he accepted responsibility, had shown “insight and remorse”, and recognised the inconvenience caused.
(
(
