SRA issues section 43 order after paralegal admits sending misleading emails to two clients
A former Irwin Mitchell paralegal has been barred from working in the legal profession after admitting that he sent misleading updates to two clients about the progress of their personal injury matters. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) imposed a Section 43 order on Waseem Hussain, preventing him from being employed by any SRA-regulated firm without prior approval.
Hussain worked in Irwin Mitchell’s international serious injury team between April 2023 and December 2024. According to the SRA’s published decision, concerns first arose in July 2024 when he emailed Client A about the status of their personal injury claim. On 11 July 2024, he informed the client that papers had been submitted to the court on 8 July and that the case was awaiting a notice of issue.
The regulator stated that Hussain knew this information was untrue. When the client later complained about a lack of progress, his supervisor reviewed the file and found no evidence that the claim had been issued or that documents had been submitted to court at the time of the email. Hussain subsequently accepted to his supervisor that the message was “wrong and misleading” and said he had sent it in an attempt to “appease the client”. He was later dismissed following a disciplinary hearing.
Embed from Getty Images
Only after his dismissal did a second issue emerge. In March 2025, Client B raised concerns about the handling of their matter. Irwin Mitchell investigated and found that Hussain had emailed the client on 1 November 2024 stating he had contacted a medico-legal expert to obtain medical records and provide instructions. The firm “found no evidence” that these steps had been taken, according to the SRA.
The regulator recorded that Hussain admitted both sets of communications were misleading and accepted that his conduct was dishonest. He also accepted that his behaviour made it undesirable for him to continue working in legal practice.
As a result, the SRA imposed a Section 43 order, which prevents Hussain from being employed by any SRA-regulated entity unless the regulator grants prior written permission. He was additionally ordered to pay £300 towards the cost of the investigation.
In mitigation, the SRA noted that Hussain described having taken a period off work, which he said had contributed to what he characterised as a “significant backlog” when he returned. He accepted responsibility for his actions, expressed “insight and remorse”, and acknowledged the inconvenience caused to the clients.
The SRA’s decision reflects the mechanism available to the regulator when a person who is not a solicitor is found to have acted dishonestly or in a way that calls into question the protection of the public or the public interest. A Section 43 order does not prevent an individual from working in a non-legal capacity but bars them from working in a legal role at a regulated firm without explicit SRA approval.
Irwin Mitchell’s investigation into both matters formed part of the information provided to the regulator, but the SRA’s published decision does not record any findings against the firm. The regulatory action applies solely to Hussain’s conduct as described in the decision.
The SRA’s publication reiterates that misleading clients about the status of their legal matters constitutes serious misconduct and can lead to regulatory intervention, particularly where dishonesty is admitted. It also emphasises that regulatory action can extend beyond solicitors to any individual employed in a legal practice whose actions raise concerns of this nature.
The order remains in force unless varied or revoked by the SRA.