A legal aid funded solicitor who inaccurately recorded time on the firm’s case management system, including 133 days in which she recorded more than 24 hours, has been struck off the roll.
Samina Ahmed, admitted in 2005, was a senior solicitor and a supervisor of trainees at national firm Tuckers Solicitors LLP. Her practice at the firm centred on clients in prison and providing representation at parole hearings, as funded by the Legal Aid Agency. Her misleading time entries led to the agency overpaying the firm almost £100,000.
Ahmed was accused, while in practice as a solicitor at Tuckers, of recording time on the firm’s case management system that she knew, or ought to have known, did not accurately reflect the work that she had completed. Ahmed, who was employed at the firm until September 2022, admitted the allegation again her.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s judgment said Ahmed ‘knowingly recorded false time entries’. Between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2022, she recorded 7,511.70 hours over 266 days, an average of 28.24 hours a day, which included 133 days for which she recorded more than 24 hours, ‘which was an impossibility’. It added: ‘Ms Ahmed continued to do this, even after being warned in a meeting…and by so doing she misled the firm.’
The SDT said: ‘Ms Ahmed’s misleading time entries were used to bill the LAA and were high enough that the fixed fee structure…was exceeded, allowing actual time spent on a matter to be recovered, which in turn incurred a greater cost to the public purse.
‘As a result of being exposed to systemic billing abuse, the LAA overpaid the firm £98,093.12, which the firm had to repay. The firm was thereby exposed to economic harm as it had relied on those sums as part of its financial planning and budgeting.’
Ahmed’s motivation was the firm’s bonus scheme ‘which rewarded high billing’, the judgment noted, adding: ‘Ms Ahmed aimed to reach the highest bonus tier (400% of salary), potentially earning £69,300. No bonus was paid, however, as the firm discovered the misconduct in time.’
She ‘acted dishonestly, failed to act with integrity, undermined public trust and confidence in the profession and misled both the LAA, into paying for work, which was not done, and the firm, into believing that she was eligible for a bonus’.
The three-person panel found Ahmed’s admissions were properly made and the allegations proved including that she acted dishonestly and without integrity. Striking Ahmed off the roll, the SDT said it was a ‘fair, reasonable and proportionate’ sanction. Ahmed was also ordered to pay £5,000 costs.
