A significant ruling has been made in a recent case concerning solicitor conduct. Rajpal Panesar, a senior partner at a national law firm, has been suspended for nine months for instructing a junior solicitor to fabricate information in an email to a client.
Rajpal Panesar, who qualified in 2004 and managed the property department at Taylor Rose, faced the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) after an incident involving his instruction to a junior solicitor, referred to as Person A. The tribunal revealed that on 19 March 2021, Panesar requested Person A to deliver a property report to a client, which was delayed as Person A did not perceive any urgency in the task.
Subsequently, Panesar misled an estate agent into believing the report had been sent without verifying the facts. Upon learning that the report had not been sent, Panesar rejected Person A’s proposal to courier the documents, as it would reveal the delay to the client.
An email drafted by Person A to explain the situation accurately was altered by Panesar to falsely state that the report had already been sent and returned. Person A found herself uncomfortable with this fabrication, and after a conversation with Panesar, she sent the original unamended email to maintain honesty.
During the SDT proceedings, evidence was presented that Person A had been in tears after the exchange with Panesar, and the stress of the situation prompted her to report the incident to the firm’s Compliance Officer for Legal Practice (COLP) at 11:00 PM on 25 March 2021. She subsequently forwarded the correspondence to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
While the underlying transaction was not affected by the delay, the SDT had to determine if Panesar had explicitly instructed the misleading email to be sent. The tribunal concluded that Panesar’s actions were dishonest and highlighted a lack of integrity, although there was no intent to place Person A in a compromising position with threats of sanction.
The SDT decided against striking off Panesar, considering the brief duration of the incident, which lasted 90 minutes, and the lack of premeditation. Nevertheless, Panesar’s suspension reflects the seriousness of his misconduct, alongside a requirement to pay £14,000 in costs.
This case underscores the importance of integrity and transparency within the legal profession. The SDT’s decision to suspend Rajpal Panesar serves as a stark reminder of the professional standards expected of solicitors.
