Version One:

Paralegal banned for dishonest emails as supervisor cleared

13 January 2026Posted by Neil Rose

A paralegal who lied to solicitors in one email and to a client’s relative in another has been banned – but the solicitor who supervised her exonerated.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) made Ria Lakhani subject to an order under section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974, meaning she cannot work for a law firm without the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) approval.

She and solicitor Joanne Elizabeth Tappin – who qualified in 2012 – worked together in the property department of London firm Mackrell at the time.

The prosecution concerned two conveyancing matters where they acted for the sellers.

The first was a probate sale which wrongly completed before the grant of probate had been received. Around three weeks later, the buyer’s solicitor emailed the pair, threatening to report Mackrell to the SRA if the signed transfer form was not received soon after.

Just under an hour later, Ms Lakhani responded to say that the signed contract and transfer had been mistakenly sent to another firm and lost in the post, and there had been IT issues within the firm. This was not true.

The deed was eventually sent a few weeks later, after the grant of probate was made.

In her defence, the paralegal accused Ms Tappin of drafting the email – but Ms Tappin’s evidence was that, after being shown the email, she had told Ms Lakhani not to send it and wait for instructions from the head of department.

The SDT said it found Ms Tappin to be a “broadly credible witness”. It explained: “She accepted a significant failing in relation to supervision and document checking and her concessions were made without any apparent evasion.”

Ms Lakhani had withdrawn from the hearing on the third day, saying she felt overwhelmed and distressed, and so did not give oral evidence.

The SDT described WhatsApp messages and emails that passed between the two in the aftermath of the email as “unattractive and capable of alternative explanations” – namely, that Ms Lakhani had carried out Ms Tappin’s instructions.

But it concluded that “they were not in the tribunal’s judgment capable of establishing the [SRA’s] case to the requisite standard”.

It found “uncertainty” as to what occurred between the opposing solicitors’ email being received and Ms Lakhani’s response.

“Given that the contemporaneous evidence was circumstantial and equivocal, and in light of the weight attached to [Ms 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 concluded.

Mackrell dismissed Ms Lakhani for gross misconduct over the email and Ms Tappin issued with a final written warning as the firm accepted it had been sent against her instructions.

The email on the second matter emerged as part of the investigation. It related to a request for the signed copy of the transfer, more than four months after the sale had completed.

Ms Lakhani emailed the client’s son, who was dealing with the matter on behalf of his mother, and told him the buyer’s solicitors had misplaced the signed transfer deed. She attached a fresh one for signature.

In fact, the SRA said, there was no evidence to show that a transfer deed had been executed by the client before this.

But beyond Ms Tappin’s “well done” endorsement of the email after it had been sent, and a message that said “you wait till we send out 2 King Georges!” – which related to the first property – “there was no cogent evidence that established she had caused or allowed” this email to be sent either.

In deciding that the section 43 order was required to protect the public interest, the SDT stressed that “all those involved in the administration and delivery of legal services – including unadmitted persons – must act with complete probity, honesty, and integrity”.

The SRA sought costs of £54,150; costs do not follow the event in the SDT so as not to have a chilling effect on the regulator.

Given both Ms Lakhani and Ms Tappin’s limited means, the tribunal ordered the paralegal to pay £4,500 and the solicitor £10,000.

Versin Two:

Solicitor cleared but paralegal barred over misleading emails

By John Hyde13 January 2026

Atribunal has cleared a solicitor of wrongdoing and barred her former colleague over two misleading emails sent to another firm. 

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ruled that Ria Lakhani, a paralegal with national firm Makrell Solicitors, had drafted and sent the emails giving a false picture of progress with two conveyancing transactions.

Lakhani had asserted that she worked under the direction of solicitor Joanne Tappin and was acting under her supervision and in accordance with her instructions.

Tappin denied any misconduct and said she had not authorised the misleading emails. The tribunal found the case against her was not proved and dismissed all allegations relating to her.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority, prosecuting, had applied at the outset of November’s seven-day hearing to withdraw allegations of dishonesty against Tappin. The tribunal allowed this.

On the third day of the hearing, Lakhani withdrew from proceedings, saying she felt overwhelmed and distressed and was unable to make submissions effectively without representation. She took no further part in proceedings and the hearing proceeded in her absence.

The tribunal heard that Tappin, admitted as a solicitor in 2012, had been responsible for the matter in one property exchange and instructed Lakhani to check the file and proceed only if all documents were present. She denied blaming the paralegal for the subsequent misleading email, which said a particular document was ‘lost in the post’, describing it as a ‘miscommunication compounded by departmental pressures’.

Tappin denied drafting, authorising or encouraging the sending of a dishonest email and stated that after seeing the draft she had told Lakhani to ‘leave it’ and wait for instructions. Tappin asserted that Lakhani had acted contrary to her advice and that another colleague had suggested that as a paralegal she could ‘get away with it’.

In relation to the second misleading email, which wrongly stated that a transfer deed had been misplaced, it was alleged by the SRA that Tappin had responded to Lakhani’s email with apparent approval. The solicitor had been forwarded the email and then sent her paralegal a WhatsApp message saying ‘Well done!’ with a smiling face emoji. Lakhani replied: ‘the Maddest anxiety sending this one ha-ha.’

The tribunal found there was no cogent evidence to establish that Tappin caused or allowed the misleading email to be sent by Lakhani. The messages from Lakhani were ‘disquieting’ but ‘inconclusive’.

The tribunal found that Lakhani had known she was sending misleading emails in a deliberate attempt to conceal errors that had been made on the file by herself and Tappin. She was issued with an indefinite section order, which prevents her working for any law firm without SRA permission, and ordered to pay £4,500 costs.

Tappin, who is now with another firm, was ordered to pay £10,000 costs.