‘Rabbit caught in headlights’ solicitor struck off

A NEWLY-qualified solicitor who fabricated emails at the Bolton law firm where he worked to cover up his failure to adequately act for five of his clients has been struck off and ordered to pay £10,000 in costs.

Joseph Paul Gill, aged 30, had become “like a rabbit caught in headlights” while he was working for Cain & Cochran Solicitors Ltd, which also has consultation offices in Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, Cardiff and London.

The company was also fined £7,500 and ordered to pay £20,000 after being found by the Solicitors Regulation Authority at a tribunal to have failed to supervise Gill properly and also to provide a service to the five clients.

Gill started working for the company in 2012 when directors of the company were
Ms Shila Ashgar and Mr Feroz Bhimani, both of whom are solicitors.

Bhimani was the firm’s compliance officer for legal practice and the compliance officer for finance and administration.

The annual returns for 2013 to 2015 indicate that the directors during that period were Mr Bhimani, Mr Pariz Karim (an unadmitted person) and Ms Shama Parvis Karim (a solicitor).

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal was told Gill failed to send out a letter to a client informing him of his potential liability for counsel’s fees.

He then told a director of the company he had emailed a client care letter to the client when he had not and then sent a false client letter to the director to cover this up.

Gill also said in an employment tribunal that particulars of a client claim had been sent to a respondent when they had not. He also failed to send an impact statement.

He further failed to attend a judicial mediation hearing on behalf of his client and then failed to comply with an employment tribunal order requiring his client to file further particulars of his claim within one week of receipt of the order.

Gill was also failed to provide within a reasonable time advice requested by a client and failure to take reasonable steps to protect the interests of his client.

The tribunal found: “The respondent’s (Gill’s) motivation for his misconduct did not appear to be financial. It appeared that he wanted to progress and enhance his role and did not want to be  criticised. He had been completely incompetent and had become like a “rabbit caught in headlights.”