Paralegal barred after fabricating email to cover up error

Avatar photo

By Angus Simpson on

14

Misled court


A paralegal has been barred from working in the legal profession after fabricating an email to cover up a mistake that caused a client’s case to be struck out.

Chaida Aboobakar was working as a personal injury paralegal at New Law Solicitors, a Cardiff-based firm, when she mistakenly included the wrong case number on a payment request. As a result, the case was struck out due to non-payment of the required fee.

In an attempt to cover up the error, Aboobakar fabricated an email showing the correct case number, according to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). However, this email did not match the original one held by the court.

In an application for relief against sanction, the paralegal submitted a witness statement in which she explained the unpaid fee was down to the court’s error and even went as far as instructing counsel on the matter.

The matter continued for around four months, during which the paralegal insisted the court was at fault and made similar claims to the opposing solicitors.

The 2025 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

Concerns raised by the judge handling the case prompted an internal investigation by NewLaw. The firm found that the only email sent to the court was the original one containing the incorrect case number — confirming that Aboobakar had fabricated the follow-up email in an attempt to cover her tracks.

On that basis, the SRA found Aboobakar to have “deliberately tried to mislead the court, counsel and solicitors for the counter-party and had fabricated documentation placed before the court. In doing so, she acted dishonestly and without integrity”.

The regulator disqualified Aboobakar from holding any role at a law firm. She was also directed to pay costs of £600.

14 Comments

Mr. Bumbler LLP

Unfortunately, at this stage of practice an inadvertent error of this nature can lead to the end of your career anyway.

The incentive to do the right thing and be honest would most likely have meant that she lost her job, with the attendant problems in getting another.

As such, she chanced it in the hope that no-one would notice, and in doing so ended her career anyway.

Sad either way.

What a sh*t takeaway

Yeah why not encouraging the leading cause of miscarriage of justice if it means saving the poor paralegal’s job… totally normal behaviour who wouldn’t have done the same bruh

Tired

Dishonesty is not “sad”. Apologists like you are part of the problem.

Anna

That is entirely false, and gives newcomers to the profession entirely the wrong impression. Mistakes do NOT lead to the end of your career. Lying, covering them up, and misleading the court does (and absolutely should).

Anna

Also, there is no guarantee that a mistake will lead to a loss of the job. I know plenty of people that have made mistakes causing havoc on a client’s case (including, in one case, a missed limitation deadline on a multi-million pound claim). They did not lose their job. Of course, repeated errors are a separate issue.

Mark

I lost my job for laughing once ….. mind you , I was driving a hearse at the time !!!

Bueller Anyone

Genuine qu as I don’t know the answer: does anyone know how the SRA claim to have jurisdiction over a paralegal who is not a solicitor, not a trainee solicitor and for all we know may not have been interested in becoming one anyway?

Anonymous

Because law firms are a body which is regulated by the SRA as an umbrella, including all employees (whether qualified or not)

Anon

She worked in an SRA-regulated firm, so the SRA has indirect authority over her via that. Note that she hasn’t been banned from being a paralegal, just from working in an SRA-regulated firm. Obviously, the result is effectively the same.

Marianne

Not the same result. She can work as paralegal at a bank, government dept or law library for example, but not at a law firm or other SRA regulated organisation.

Anonymous

They are still regulated and otherwise subject to the Legal Services Act 2007. S.43 affords the SDT the power to ban non-qualified individuals from the profession and/or working in a law firm. That includes paralegals, legal cashiers, receptionists, marketing staff etc.

Anonymous

Did the client get benefit out of this messs?

Anonymous

My solicitor told me I was having a full crash reconstruction expert he got a plerimanary crash expert who never even saw the crash site or vehicles then got my funders to stop my legal expenses and then came of record leaving me with no funding and no crash report then said after 3 years 9 months we have not a case to answer when there is a indispensable witness who saw the crash the court orders both party’s to have a full crash reconstruction expert mine was 10 pages the defendants was 60 pages my conclusion to this is these solicitors are taking your case stringing you along and just taking your money at the end and you are left with nothing and this is wide spread not just a blip they are making money out of your insurance and you the insurer are left to dry

Mr B. Fawlty, esq.

I’m usually the first one to jump down the throat of the SRA/SDT for dishing out grossly disproportionate punishments to juniors in this game. This, however, seems to be one of the outliers where they’ve got it right.

Unfortunately there’s a significant difference between a ‘moment of madness’ cover-up email before coming clean, and a prolonged course of serious dishonesty which itself amounted to criminal conduct for knowingly submitting witness evidence, signed by a statement of truth, which she knew was false.

While this doesn’t change the fact that the SRA are clearly incapable of drawing the line in more marginal cases (they’re incapable of most things, let’s face it), this is way beyond reproach.

Join the conversation