Witness challenged the statement in court after the signature was copied onto the amended document
A senior paralegal at DWF Law LLP has been rebuked by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) after copying a witness’s signature onto an amended statement without permission, resulting in court time being wasted and regulatory action.
The SRA’s decision, published on 4 June 2026, concerns Korie Rose, an employee of DWF Law LLP in Manchester, who agreed to the disciplinary outcome following an investigation into his conduct. The incident arose during litigation proceedings in September 2024 involving a witness identified as Ms P-J.
According to the regulator, Ms P-J sent a typed witness statement containing handwritten amendments to DWF on 3 September 2024. She signed the statement of truth on the amended version of the document. The SRA found that Rose inaccurately transcribed the witness’s handwritten amendments into a new typed version of the statement. He then used a computer snipping tool to copy the witness’s signed statement of truth from the original amended document and paste it onto the newly transcribed version without obtaining her permission.
The amended statement was subsequently disclosed to the claimant’s solicitors and included within the trial bundle. During the trial on 10 October 2024, the witness informed the court that the statement presented was not the version she had signed.
The issue resulted in court time being spent establishing how the document had been created. Further delays occurred when copies of the original handwritten statement had to be emailed to the judge for printing and distribution. The court was unable to receive a full explanation during the hearing and ordered a further hearing to investigate the circumstances. The Director of DWF’s motor team was later required to file an affidavit.
Rose admitted breaching Rule 2.6 of the SRA Code of Conduct, which requires legal professionals not to waste court time. He also admitted breaching Principle 2 of the SRA Principles, which requires conduct that upholds public trust and confidence in the legal profession.
In deciding on a sanction, the SRA noted that Rose’s actions had the potential to mislead the court and others, while causing a significant waste of judicial resources. The regulator also highlighted that Rose was a senior paralegal with more than ten years of experience and supervisory responsibilities.
However, the SRA accepted several mitigating factors. Rose apologised for his conduct, accepted responsibility immediately, demonstrated remorse and cooperated fully with the investigation. The regulator also confirmed there was no evidence of dishonesty, no pattern of misconduct and no previous adverse regulatory history. The SRA concluded that a written rebuke was the appropriate outcome and ordered Rose to pay £300 towards the costs of the investigation