Former law firm paralegal sanctioned after convictions for drink-driving and no insurance
A former paralegal at Simpson Thacher and Bartlett LLP has been rebuked by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) following convictions for drink-driving and driving without insurance. The disciplinary decision concerns Sam Baker-Harber, who was employed as a paralegal at Simpson Thacher and Bartlett LLP in London at the time of the offences. At the date of publication, he was employed by Proskauer Rose LLP.
According to the SRA, Baker-Harber drove a motor vehicle on 29 December 2024 while over the legal alcohol limit. The regulator also found that he did not have valid third-party insurance for the vehicle. The SRA concluded that the conduct breached Principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019, which requires individuals to act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons.
On 28 January 2025, Baker-Harber appeared before Cheltenham Magistrates’ Court, where he pleaded guilty to driving with excess alcohol and driving without a valid insurance policy. The court sentenced him to a 12-month community order, which included a requirement to complete 80 hours of unpaid work.
He was also disqualified from driving for 40 months and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £114 and prosecution costs of £85. In assessing the appropriate regulatory outcome, the SRA considered the seriousness of the offences and noted that Baker-Harber had a previous conviction for driving with excess alcohol.
The regulator noted that the 12-month community order exceeded the court fine that would more commonly be expected for such a conviction. The SRA determined that a written rebuke was a proportionate sanction and ordered Baker-Harber to pay investigation costs of £600.
In reaching its decision, the regulator took into account mitigating factors, including that Baker-Harber had demonstrated insight into his conduct and expressed remorse. The SRA stated that a more serious regulatory sanction was not considered proportionate in light of those factors. The disciplinary decision was originally made on 21 January 2026 and was published by the regulator on 11 June 2026.