Site icon Legal Cheek

Solicitor struck off after misleading clients about progress of their cases

For over a year

Piles of files
A senior solicitor has been removed from the roll after spending more than a year deceiving clients about the progress of their cases.

Rachel Parker worked in estate administration at national firm Buckles after qualifying in 2019. Over the course of more than a year, she falsely told clients, colleagues and a bank that she had submitted applications for grants of probate and had chased the Probate Registry for updates, when records showed she had done neither. The pattern of behaviour spanned eight matters and continued until November 2023.

One client had been led to believe their case was well advanced and a resolution was imminent, only to discover the relevant application had never been made. They described themselves as “incredibly disappointed”. The tribunal found that Parker’s behaviour had “created a substantial risk of serious harm” to her clients.

The 2026 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

Parker resigned from Buckles in March 2024, after which an internal investigation into her handling of the probate matters was conducted and referred to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). She admitted what she had done, according to the SRA, and reached an agreed outcome with the regulator to be struck off. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) later approved that agreement, confirming that striking off was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction.

In personal mitigation, which the SRA did not accept, Parker said she had been “experiencing significant mental health challenges, including symptoms consistent with anxiety and depression and which were exacerbated by excessive workloads, personal stressors, and a lack of adequate support at work”.

Buckles disputed the suggestion that support had been lacking. The firm said it had established wellbeing and management structures available to all staff regardless of seniority, that those structures had been drawn upon in this case, and that it had referred the matter to the regulator promptly upon discovering what had happened.

She was also ordered to pay £5,000 in costs.

Exit mobile version