A contact centre employee has been banned from working in the profession after she presented as a legal representative in emails.
Rachel Saunyama was employed by Irwin Mitchell as a client experience expert. She handled and forwarded calls from members of the public including clients and prospective clients, as well as calls from other firms and solicitors. She also passed on email correspondence to the relevant departments.
Her role did not include giving legal advice or acting for clients.
Problems arose after an acquaintance of Saunyama had difficulties with an employer. Saunyama emailed the employer from her work email address purporting to act on behalf of the acquaintance. When the employer instructed solicitors, Saunyama emailed them directly.
Between 5 and 14 February 2022, she sent six emails in which she removed from her email signature her job title and instead included after her name ‘for and on behalf of IM LLP’. She also described herself as the ‘representative’ of her acquaintance and at no time corrected the solicitors’ reference in emails to her acquaintance as ‘your client’.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority noted: ‘In an email to the employer dated 5 February 2022, Ms Saunyama confirmed that the email was formal notice that they intended to proceed with the matter "via legal channels" and that they had been liaising with the Home Office and Employment Tribunal. At no time had Ms Saunyama attempted or had any contact with either the Home Office or the Employment Tribunal.’
She deleted all the emails sent from her work email.
Irwin Mitchell launched an internal investigation after receiving a complaint from the firm about a call Saunyama had made. Saunyama admitted she had corresponded with the solicitors who complained and that she was trying to help the acquaintance. She said she intended to pass the case on to Irwin Mitchell’s employment dispute team but the investigation found she made no attempt to do so.
Saunyama was dismissed for gross misconduct and her conduct reported to the SRA. She admitted her conduct breached SRA principles 2, 4 and 5.
The regulator said Saunyama had ‘acted without integrity and honesty’ and her conduct ‘lacked integrity’. It was therefore undesirable for Saunyama to be employed by a licensed body.
