A solicitor has been struck off for working three jobs at the same time and billing them for the same hours.
Belinda Sarkodie - who claimed to work 100 hours per week - had juggled jobs for Property Legal (Manchester) Limited (PLS), Wright & Lord Solicitors Limited (W&L) and Muve (Trading name Connect 2 Law) simultaneously, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard.
Between 29 June 2021 and 16 July 2021, she misled two of the firms where she worked as a locum by submitting timesheets and claiming payment for the same hours on the same dates from both firms, while she was also employed to work full-time by a third law firm, the Solicitors Regulation Authority alleged.
Her contract with her main employer, Muve, stated she was to work solely for them. Sarkodie misled Muve into thinking she was working there full-time, while working two other roles for PLS and W&L during her period of employment, the SDT found.
Read more
The tribunal noted: ‘The firms at which the respondent worked expressed dissatisfaction with her output and performance, the respondent was not readily contactable whilst working remotely, clients had complained and unsatisfactory work that ought to have to have been completed by the respondent (and for which the respondent was remunerated) was subsequently redone by other members of staff.’
Sarkodie argued she had not knowingly done anything wrong. She said she had ‘worked hard in each of her roles and gone over and above the requirements of the roles that she was employed in’ and referenced her ‘innate work ethic that allowed her to work multiple roles and long hours'.
She claimed she did not scrutinise the terms of her contract because she was very busy working under severe stress dealing with irate clients and learning the new systems and processes required in the role.
But the SDT concluded Sarkodie’s conduct was dishonest. She was struck off and ordered to pay costs of £8,891.50.
‘The respondent had misled and took unfair advantage of her employers by submitting timesheets and claiming payment for the same hours on the same dates from different firms. The respondent must have realised that such conduct was a material breach of her professional obligations’, the judgment stated.
