Paralegal texted client urging them not to cooperate with firm investigation

Avatar photo

By Rhys Duncan on

4

Filed ‘misleading’ info with land registry


A paralegal has been barred from working in the legal profession after texting a client asking them not to cooperate with a firm’s investigation into her behaviour.

Tina Spencer was employed by Mansfield outfit Hopkins Solicitors from October 2018 until July 2022 as a paralegal in its family department.

In May 2022, however, a decision posted by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) notes that Spencer filed “misleading information” with the Land Registry on behalf of a client, named only as ‘Client B’.

This, the regulator said, amounted to “dishonest” conduct.

The 2024 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

To make matters worse, Spencer later tried to “conceal her actions by advising the client not to provide information to the firm, who were investigating her conduct”.

In particular, text messages sent by Spencer to the client were “intended to dissuade [the client] from cooperating with the investigation”.

But the issues didn’t end there. Taken on as a secretary by Bryan & Armstrong, another Mansfield outfit, in August 2022, it was found that before the end of her employment in November that year, Spencer “prepared wills for four testators in her personal capacity”. She used Bryan & Armstrong front covers bearing their name and address on each of the documents, according to the SRA finding.

This, the regulator said, amounted to attempting to “mislead” the third parties by preparing the wills, titled with Bryan & Armstrong’s name and address, despite the parties not being clients of the firm.

For her wrongdoing Spencer was handed a section 43 order. This prevents her from working for any law firm without the regulator’s prior approval.

She was also ordered to pay a proportion of the SRA’s costs of £1,350.

4 Comments

PrettyLittleLawyers

Well nothing can be said on this one other than, that’s her own stupid fault.

Archibald O'Pomposity

Many thanks for your analysis.

Anonymous

Very disappointing end to a promising career. Ms Spencer brought the profession into disrepute and her actions erodes public trust. In my opinion, it was a right decision. Had she been a Solicitor, she would have been struck off.

Archibald O'Pomposity

“Very disappointing end to a promising career. Ms Spencer brought the profession into disrepute and her actions erodes public trust. In my opinion, it was a right decision. Had she been a Solicitor, she would have been struck off.”

This is a rather pointless and somewhat self-important comment. There is no suggestion that her career was “promising”, and the decision to issue a Section 54 does not need to be approved by you. Finally, your prediction of the likely outcome had she been a solicitor is quite irrelevant, if otherwise probably correct.

Join the conversation