A senior solicitor has been struck off after false time entries led to major legal aid overpayments
A solicitor funded through legal aid has been struck off the roll after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found she knowingly recorded false time entries, including numerous days where she claimed to have worked more than 24 hours.
Samina Ahmed, who was admitted as a solicitor in 2005, worked as a senior solicitor at national firm Tuckers Solicitors LLP and supervised trainee solicitors. Her practice focused on representing clients in prison and appearing at parole hearings, with her work funded by the Legal Aid Agency.
The tribunal heard that Ahmed inaccurately recorded time on the firm’s case management system over a sustained period. Between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2022, she recorded a total of 7,511.70 hours across 266 working days. This equated to an average of 28.24 hours per day and included 133 days on which she logged more than 24 hours of work, something the tribunal described as impossible.
Ahmed admitted the allegations against her. The judgment stated that she knew, or ought to have known, that the time recorded did not accurately reflect the work she had completed. Despite being warned during a meeting, she continued to record inflated hours, thereby misleading her employer.
Embed from Getty Images
The tribunal found that Ahmed’s misleading time entries were used to bill the Legal Aid Agency. The recorded hours were sufficient to exceed the fixed fee structure, allowing claims based on actual time spent. As a result, the agency overpaid Tuckers Solicitors LLP £98,093.12, which the firm was later required to repay.
The judgment noted that the firm suffered economic harm as it had relied on those funds for financial planning and budgeting. Ahmed remained employed at the firm until September 2022.
The tribunal also considered Ahmed’s motivation, which it said stemmed from the firm’s bonus scheme that rewarded high billing levels. The panel found that she aimed to reach the highest bonus tier, amounting to 400 per cent of salary and a potential payment of £69,300. No bonus was paid, however, as the misconduct was discovered before any payment was made.
In its findings, the tribunal concluded that Ahmed acted dishonestly, failed to act with integrity and undermined public trust and confidence in the legal profession. It said she misled both the Legal Aid Agency into paying for work that had not been done and the firm into believing she was eligible for a bonus.
The three-member panel ruled that striking Ahmed off the roll was a fair, reasonable and proportionate sanction. She was also ordered to pay costs of £5,000.