Junior solicitor lied about applying for grants of probate


Probate: Eight matters affected

A junior solicitor who told clients, colleagues and others that she had submitted applications for grants of probate when she had not, has been struck off.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) also found that Rachel Parker, 36, had lied when she told people that she had chased the Probate Registry for the grants, often blaming delays there for the wait.

It said “the dishonest conduct was deliberate, calculated and repeated over a period of over a year. Ms Parker created a substantial risk of serious harm to her clients”.

She qualified in 2019 and worked in the estate administration team at the law firm Buckles. Her actions took place between September 2022 and November 2023.

Ms Parker resigned and left the firm in March 2024, and a subsequent investigation into her handling of eight probate matters revealed her failures to act.

In a statement of agreed facts and outcome, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) said she admitted to what she had done.

In mitigation, which was not agreed by the SRA, Ms Parker said that at the time she was “experiencing significant mental health challenges, including symptoms consistent with anxiety and depression and which were exacerbated by excessive workloads, personal stressors, and a lack of adequate support at work”.

These difficulties “directly contributed to her inability to manage deadlines, communications, and follow through on tasks”.

Ms Parker said she did not act for personal gain, had co-operated with the regulator and offered her “sincere, and genuine, apology”.

However, she did not contend that this amounted to exceptional circumstances which would justify the SDT making any order other than she should be struck off – the usual sanction in cases of dishonesty.

The SDT agreed, describing it as “the only appropriate and proportionate sanction”.

Ms Parker also agreed to pay costs of £5,000.




Blog


The AI governance gap in law firms and why it matters now

A third of law firms are already using AI tools with no formal policy in place to govern how AI gets used, what data goes into it, or who’s accountable when something goes wrong.


Information isn’t oversight – lessons from the PM Law review

The PM Law review’s real findings perhaps point to a failure mode applying to any organisation sitting on scattered risk information.


AI can do the work but it cannot inherit the lawyer’s duty

What happens when lawyers delegate cognitive work to AI but remain personally responsible for judgements they may no longer have independently reasoned through?


Loading animation