A paralegal has been reprimanded by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for providing misleading information to a client regarding a Land Registry matter. This issue arose from an inherited problem when handling a land purchase case at Chattertons, a law firm in Lincolnshire.
In 2020, Chattertons was engaged to facilitate the purchase of land from a client’s neighbour, which was finalised in June of that year. However, the transaction concluded without adequately addressing restrictions that impeded the client’s intended use of the land, leading to a formal complaint. Consequently, the firm’s insurers recommended resolving the matter informally with a £10,000 reimbursement from the neighbour to the client.
Chattertons applied to HM Land Registry to rectify the issue; however, they failed to respond to a requisition, resulting in the application’s cancellation. No progress was made until Mabel Pamela Clarke, a paralegal at the firm, revisited the file in August 2023. Upon reviewing, Ms Clarke identified a balance due to the client and recognised the necessity to resubmit the application to the Land Registry.
In communicating with the client, Ms Clarke conveyed that their application was pending, suggesting it had been under processing for some time, a statement that did not accurately represent the case’s status. The SRA assessed this conduct as misleading, indicating a breach of integrity, leading to Ms Clarke’s dismissal for gross misconduct.
The SRA considered Ms Clarke’s mitigating circumstances, noting that she was not initially responsible for the file’s complications. Her misleading email was deemed unintentional and not for personal gain. Her immediate admission of the error and the absence of actual client harm were additional factors in the SRA’s decision to issue a rebuke rather than a more severe sanction.
Public sanction was deemed necessary by the SRA to maintain confidence in the legal profession, despite there being no substantial harm caused to the consumer or third parties. Ms Clarke was also instructed to bear the costs of £300 associated with the proceedings.
The incident underscores the importance of integrity and accuracy in legal practice, emphasising the need for legal professionals to maintain trust with their clients and adhere to ethical standards.
