Macdonald: Acted pro bono
A paralegal denied an adjournment by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) so she could be legally represented – even though the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) backed one – is to appeal the ban that followed the hearing.
Her advocate on the adjournment application said the decision raised an important issue for the profession.
We reported on Tuesday that Ria Lakhani was made subject to a section 43 order – meaning she cannot work for a law firm without the SRA’s permission – after the SDT found she had lied to opposing solicitors in one email and to a client’s relative in another.
However, it exonerated Joanne Elizabeth Tappin, the solicitor who supervised her.
There were a series of preliminary issues dealt with at the start of the hearing, beginning with the SRA successfully applying to withdraw the allegations that Ms Tappin had been dishonest, in the light of two medical reports.
Ms Tappin then invited the SDT to adjourn the proceedings given that Ms Lakhani only had representation to address the remainder of the preliminary issues.
Further, she was concerned that she would be exposed to cross-examination by Ms Lakhani on the matters the SRA was no longer pursuing, as part of her attempt to advance her own case – which was that Ms Tappin was aware of the emails.
There were various special measures in place for her cross-examination given her medical situation.
Calum Macdonald, the barrister who represented Ms Lakhani pro bono on the preliminary matters, indicated that he could commit to three further days attendance if the substantive hearing were relisted before April.
The SRA decided “reluctantly” not to oppose the application, “recognising the importance of [Ms Lakhani] being represented during the proceedings”.
But the SDT refused the application, citing the risk that her limited representation “might not cover the remainder of the proceedings”, especially as the hearing could be concluded within “the current listing window”.
“Applying the overriding objective, the tribunal concluded that fairness required affording [Ms Lakhani] – who is neither a solicitor nor an experienced litigator – appropriate leeway in presenting her case and assistance insofar as permissible,” it said.
“This was balanced against the need for expedition, given the age of the allegations and the fact that the previous hearing in May 2025 had already been adjourned shortly after it commenced at the [Ms Tappin’s] request.”
It went on to reject the solicitor’s application for the cases to be heard separately and recorded that, on third day of the hearing, Ms Lakhani decided to withdraw from the proceedings and the hearing continued in her absence.
The ruling noted: “She stated that she felt overwhelmed and distressed, was unable to make submissions effectively, and was concerned about cross-examining her former line manager, a vulnerable witness, without representation. She submitted that these factors made her effective participation impossible.”
Mr Macdonald, who works in-house at the Financial Conduct Authority and took on the case through Bar pro bono charity Advocate, said: “This was a complex case involving cut-throat defences and expert evidence. All parties, including the SRA, agreed to an adjournment to allow Ria to be legally represented.
“The SDT rejected this, knowing that it would be forcing a junior paralegal to cross-examine their former boss, a senior lawyer, who was to be treated as a vulnerable witness and was represented by a major law firm and experienced counsel. Ria described feeling totally overwhelmed and confused.
“Denied the opportunity for legal representation and faced with a hearing that she believed would be unfair and unequal, Ria decided not to participate… Ria will be appealing her case to the High Court.”
Mr Macdonald said the case raised two particular issues. First was when a disciplinary tribunal should adjourn to allow an individual to be legally represented.
He questioned the need for expedition here given that it had taken more than four years for the case to reach a hearing, including the previous adjournment for Ms Tappin.
The second was the SRA dropping the charges of dishonesty against Ms Tappin.
“This was based on medical evidence which said that she was incapable of forming the subjective knowledge for dishonesty, despite continuing to practise as a solicitor. That approach will no doubt be of interest/concern to practitioners.”
Leave a Comment