Plans to appeal sanction
A paralegal who sent misleading emails during two property transactions has been barred from working in the legal profession.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) ruled that Ria Lakhani should be made subject to a section 43 order, restricting her future involvement in legal practice unless permission is granted. In the same decision, the tribunal rejected allegations against the solicitor who supervised her, Joanne Elizabeth Tappin.
The case arose from events in 2021, when both women were working in the property department of London firm Mackrell. The SDT considered two separate property transactions in which misleading explanations were given for missing transfer deeds.
In the first transaction, a probate sale had completed before a grant of probate was obtained. Some weeks later, the buyer’s solicitors contacted the firm warning that they would report the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) if the signed transfer was not produced. Less than an hour after that email was received, Lakhani replied claiming the signed contract and transfer had been sent to another firm and lost in the post, and that IT problems had also contributed to the delay.
The tribunal found those explanations to be untrue. It concluded that no valid signed transfer was held at the time and that probate had not yet been granted. The transfer was only sent later, after probate was issued.
Lakhani alleged that the email had been “drafted” by Tappin. Tappin told the tribunal that, after being shown the draft, she instructed the paralegal not to send it and to wait for guidance from the head of department.
In assessing that evidence, the SDT described Tappin as a “broadly credible witness”, noting that she accepted “a significant failing in relation to supervision and document checking” and made concessions “without any apparent evasion”.
Lakhani withdrew from the hearing on the third day, saying she felt overwhelmed and distressed and was unable to make submissions effectively. The tribunal decided it was appropriate to continue in her absence.
When examining messages exchanged between the two, including WhatsApps, the SDT said they were “unattractive and capable of alternative explanations”.
“Given that the contemporaneous evidence was circumstantial and equivocal, and in
light of the weight attached to the [Tappin’s] tested evidence, the Tribunal was not satisfied to the required standard that she caused or allowed the misleading email to be sent,” it said.
A second incident came to light during the firm’s internal investigation. It concerned another completed sale, where more than four months later Lakhani emailed the client’s son — who was assisting his mother — stating that the buyer’s solicitors had misplaced the signed transfer deed. She attached a fresh transfer for signature.
The tribunal found there was no evidence that any signed transfer had existed at that point. Although Tappin responded after the email had been sent with a “well done” message accompanied by a smiling face emoji, the SDT again concluded there was no cogent evidence that she had authorised or permitted the email to be sent.
Following the first incident, Mackrell dismissed Lakhani for gross misconduct. Tappin received a final written warning after the firm accepted that the email had been sent against her instructions.
The SRA sought costs of over £54,000 but Taking into account the limited means of both respondents, the SDT ordered Lakhani to pay £4,500 and Tappin £10,000.
Lakhani told Legal Cheek, via her legal representative, that she intends to appeal the case to the High Court.