SRA: Decision was proportionate
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has rejected an appeal from a legal assistant banned by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) from working for law firms.
The regulator found Rajeeve Sivapathasunderam “acted outside his authority in injunctive and declaratory proceedings”, failed to advise his client about the existence of the injunction and gave “incorrect advice that led to the breach of the order”.
The tribunal said it accepted the conclusion reached by an SRA adjudicator that Mr Sivapathasunderam had acted “without supervision” and breached core professional principles.
He joined Estate and Corporate Solicitors in Dartford, Kent, as a legal assistant in 2019. He was the case handler when ‘AT’ bought the freehold of a property containing a shop in July 2021.
A year later, on AT’s instructions, Mr Sivapathasunderam served a ‘vacate notice’ on RR, an employee of the former tenant, who remained in occupation.
RR’s solicitors obtained an interim injunction from the county court restraining AT and his agents from recovering the property.
They filed a claim preserving the injunction in November 2022, but the following month Mr Sivapathasunderam told AT the injunction had lapsed, after which AT attended the property and breached it.
A partner at RR’s solicitors emailed the legal assistant, “expressing astonishment at his ‘sheer incompetence’”. This was followed by a contempt application against AT.
The court confirmed the claim had been issued and directed AT to file evidence by 13 January 2023. No evidence was filed. RR’s solicitors reported Mr Sivapathasunderam to the SRA later that month.
AT “claimed ignorance of the injunction” at Liverpool County Court, but was found in contempt, ordered to pay £5,400 costs within 14 days and “faced adjournment for possible custody”. The injunction continued.
An SRA adjudicator found that Mr Sivapathasunderam had failed to uphold trust and confidence in the profession or act in the best interests of his client.
His misconduct “posed a serious risk to the client and to public confidence in the profession” and he was disqualified from acting an as employee of a body regulated by the SRA under section 99 of the Legal Services Act.
Counsel for Mr Sivapathasunderam argued that he “could not fully grasp the scope of his regulatory duties” and the adjudicator “failed to account for systemic firm failures and imposed an unrealistic burden” to seek supervision.
The legal assistant “honestly believed he was acting in the client’s best interests” and had shown “genuine insight and remorse”.
The SRA argued that the appeal “failed to meet the high threshold required to overturn a regulatory decision” and the legal assistant’s misconduct was “egregious: acting without authorisation, litigating without authority, ignoring court orders, and exposing a client to the risk of wrongful imprisonment”. His actions were “persistent and grossly incompetent failings”.
Dismissing Mr Sivapathasunderam’s appeal, the SDT said disqualification was “a proportionate regulatory response”.
It said: “While acknowledging the appellant’s lack of qualification and possible firm supervisory failings, the tribunal held that these did not negate the seriousness of the conduct or the risk posed to the public and the profession as identified by the adjudicator.”