A solicitor who lied about having cancer in a leave request to his firm has been struck off the roll by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
While in practice as a solicitor at Reed Smith, Soham Nitin Panchamiya was alleged to have, between September 2023 and November 2023, falsely claimed to the firm that he had been diagnosed with cancer and was undergoing treatment.
He was also alleged to have provided the firm with a falsified medical report concerning his purported cancer diagnosis and treatment, and his ability to work.
Panchamiya admitted the allegations against him, including that his conduct was dishonest.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard that Panchamiya, admitted in 2017, emailed his line manager asking for a week off as annual leave and stating his ‘cancer is back’. In a later phone call to HR, he said he was undergoing preventative chemotherapy treatment for spine cancer.
After being asked for a medical certificate, Panchamiya initially told the firm he had stopped treatment, was ‘all good’ and no further action was needed. Eventually he sent a medical certificate, but inconsistencies with the document led the firm to seek out confirmation of its authenticity with the doctor, who said it was not. Panchamiya was suspended by the firm.
Read more
The judgment said it was accepted that at the time of the misconduct, Panchamiya was ‘facing extremely difficult personal circumstances’. His ‘acts of dishonesty were individually serious, and cumulatively extremely serious’.
It added that his dishonesty was ‘deliberate, calculated and repeated’ and he was ‘wholly and solely culpable for his dishonest acts’.
‘His initial act of dishonesty had been motivated by his desire to take time off work. Thereafter, he had continued to perpetrate dishonest acts in order to conceal his initial lie. He had abused the trust placed in him by the firm.’
The SDT said Panchamiya’s dishonesty ‘was neither minor nor trivial; its seriousness increased with each instance of dishonesty undertaken’.
‘Mr Panchamiya had numerous opportunities to correct the false impression made before he was confronted by the firm. He did not do so. Instead, he compounded his initial lie with further acts of dishonesty, including taking the extraordinary step of falsifying medical evidence.’
Striking Panchamiya off the roll the tribunal said it was ‘sympathetic’ to the solicitor’s personal difficulties and mental health issues and commended him on ‘his level of insight, remorse and the early admissions made’ but ‘the only appropriate and proportionate sanction’ was strike off.
Panchamiya was struck off the roll and ordered to pay £22,000 costs – a £10,000 reduction in what the Solicitors Regulation Authority sought after the SDT found the fixed fee claimed ‘excessive’.
