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.”
SANGHA KOMMUNE (SSR) 