Land Registry: Application rejected
A paralegal who misled a client about the progress of their matter as she sought to clear up a problem she inherited on a file has been rebuked by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
A recently published notice from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) said Mabel Pamela Clarke worked at Lincolnshire firm Chattertons, which back in 2020 had been instructed to deal with the purchase of land from the client’s neighbour.
It completed on 15 June 2020. The client’s neighbour completed the purchase without properly identifying restrictions which would prevent the client from using the land as he intended.
This was subject to a formal complaint, and the matter was referred to Chattertons’ insurers in September 2020 as a negligence claim.
“The firm’s insurers advised them to seek an informal remedy with payment of £10,000 to be made to the client from the neighbour.”
Chattertons made an application to HM Land Registry (HMLR) to resolve the issue but failed to deal with a requisition it subsequently raised. This resulted in the application being cancelled.
No further work was carried out on the file until it was picked up by Ms Clarke in August 2023. She found a £502 balance that should be returned to the client and that the HMLR application needed to be resubmitted.
She did this and emailed the client just over an hour later, “advising them that their application was still pending at HMLR, and that she would be chasing them for updates as the matter had been processing for ‘some time’”. The SRA said this comment did not “accurately reflect the position on the file relating to the HMLR application”.
The firm decided that Ms Clarke had misled the client and dismissed her for gross misconduct. The regulator said her actions had shown a lack of integrity.
In deciding a rebuke to be appropriate, the SRA said it took into account her mitigation, including that she was not responsible for the HMLR issues on the file before inheriting the matter. “The misleading statement was not given to protect her own position, or for her own personal gain.”
The conduct concerned a single email, Ms Clarke admitted her actions when they were raised by the firm “and demonstrated insight”.
Further, the client did not suffer any actual loss or harm and there was “a low risk of repetition”.
The SRA said “some public sanction” was required to uphold public confidence but there had been “no lasting significant harm to consumers or third parties”.
Ms Clarke was also ordered to pay costs of £300.
