A solicitor has been severely criticised by a judge for tampering with legal documents to inflate costs claims amounting to nearly £260,000, reducing it to nothing.
In a significant legal ruling, a judge has condemned a solicitor, Sukhraj Multani, for what is described as the most severe case of document tampering they have encountered. This decision arose during the case of Kapoor v Johal, where Ms Multani, a sole practitioner at RH Solicitors in West London, attempted to reclaim amounts from her client in excess of what was initially invoiced. The case revolved around a lengthy boundary dispute that extended from 2010 to 2022, eventually leading to the dismissal of the final proceedings against Ms Multani’s client.
The legal anomaly surfaced when Ms Multani presented a bill totalling £258,583, while her client had been invoiced approximately £84,000. This discrepancy breached the indemnity principle, which is considered a serious disciplinary issue. Judge James, who presided over the case, estimated that a standard assessment of the costs would have resulted in an allowance of between £40,000 and £45,000. However, the eventual ruling led to the dismissal of the entire bill due to identified inconsistencies and deliberate alterations in the file notes.
During the examination of the case, Judge James pointed out numerous discrepancies in the billing documents, implying these were more than mere errors. The increase in the claimed amount originated from VAT charges on Ms Multani’s costs without correct registration, as well as inflated hourly rates. Additionally, alterations of numerous attendance notes and amendments of existing notes indicated falsely prolonged time spent on legal activities. For instance, claims were made for extensive time on instructions to counsel, which were almost identical to previous instructions. Charges were also inflated for clerical duties and court attendances that allegedly did not occur.
The judge referenced the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Gempride v Bamrah to underline that responsibility for these fraudulent claims could not be shifted to the costs draftsman employed by Ms Multani, known as Mr S Kumar from Nathan Associates. Although Mr Kumar was not operating within the regulated sector, hence not subject to the Association of Costs Lawyers’ jurisdiction, Judge James noted that his conduct warranted investigation.
Furthermore, Simon Gibbs, a costs lawyer from GWS Law representing the paying party, underscored the gravity of the situation, describing it as one of the most serious document tampering cases conceivable. The misconduct led to the awarding of costs to the paying party, totalling £10,314, for the detailed assessment on the indemnity basis.
This case highlights the critical importance of maintaining integrity within the legal profession, ensuring that billing practices are transparent and accurately reflect the services provided. The severe repercussions faced by Ms Multani serve as a cautionary tale for legal practitioners regarding the consequences of unethical conduct.
