Caseworker fabricated a psychological report and served it on the court
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has imposed a Section 43 order on Fuhad Ahmed, banning him from working in any SRA-regulated practice without prior approval after finding he fabricated an expert psychological report and filed it at court on behalf of a client. The decision was made on 11 August 2025 and published on 6 October 2025.
According to the SRA’s decision notice, Mr Ahmed — whose last known address is in Tower Hamlets, London — was employed as a caseworker at Wilden Legal Solicitors (the firm) at 2–12 Cambridge Heath Road, London E1 5QH. He worked there from 20 September 2023 until he was dismissed for gross misconduct on 18 December 2023.
The SRA found that during an immigration matter the client had been advised to obtain a psychological assessment to support the claim and paid £500 for the report. Following a telephone assessment between the client and an expert psychologist, Mr Ahmed contacted the expert to request that the report be completed the same day by 10pm so it could be served at court. The expert was unable to meet that deadline due to a prior commitment.
Embed from Getty Images
Despite this, Mr Ahmed drafted a psychological report himself, purporting to be authored by the expert, and served it on the court as if it were a genuine expert opinion. Mr Ahmed is not a qualified psychologist. The SRA said inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the document led the client to contact the expert directly, who confirmed she had never drafted the report. The client then complained to the SRA, prompting an investigation with the firm.
During the firm’s internal investigation, Mr Ahmed admitted that he had prepared and submitted the report. The SRA concluded the allegation was proven and that his conduct was dishonest, noting that he both fabricated an expert report and falsely presented it to the court as a legitimate document.
In making the order, the SRA applied the legal test for dishonesty set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67, first determining Mr Ahmed’s knowledge and belief about the facts and then assessing his conduct against the objective standards of ordinary decent people. It found that, on the balance of probabilities, the actions were dishonest and serious.
Under Section 43(2) of the Solicitors Act 1974, the SRA may restrict non-solicitors from being employed or remunerated by a solicitor or recognised body where their conduct makes it undesirable for them to be involved in legal practice without prior consent. The SRA determined that Mr Ahmed’s behaviour met that threshold. The order took immediate effect from the date of notification, and the decision will be published.
The SRA emphasised that honesty is required from all who provide legal services, whether or not they are solicitors. It highlighted that fabricating expert evidence involves multiple deliberate steps and strikes at the heart of public trust. The decision notice states that the order protects consumers and public confidence by preventing Mr Ahmed from being employed, remunerated, or acting as a manager, owner, or having an interest in any SRA-regulated firm without written permission.
Mr Ahmed was also ordered to pay £600 towards the SRA’s costs of investigation.
The regulator noted that Section 43 orders are regulatory, not punitive in nature and remain in force indefinitely unless reviewed and revoked. The purpose is to ensure any future involvement in legal services occurs only where the SRA has assessed that adequate controls and supervision are in place.
This decision adds to a series of recent actions where the SRA has imposed restrictions on non-qualified staff following findings of dishonesty or serious misconduct, particularly where court processes and client trust were jeopardised.