The senior paralegal copied a witness’s signed statement of truth onto a transcribed statement without the witness’s permission
A DWF Law LLP employee has been rebuked by the Solicitors Regulation Authority after using Snipping Tool to copy a witness’s signed statement of truth and paste it onto a transcribed witness statement without the witness’s permission.
Korie Rose, a senior paralegal at DWF Law LLP with more than 10 years’ experience, also agreed to pay £300 towards the costs of the regulator’s investigation.
According to the SRA’s decision, the matter arose from a witness statement sent to the firm on 3 September 2024 by a witness, referred to as Ms P-J, for Mr Rose’s client. The witness had sent a typed statement containing handwritten amendments and had signed the statement of truth on that amended document.
The SRA said Mr Rose inaccurately transcribed the witness’s amendments and annotations into a typed statement on the same day. He then used Snipping Tool to cut the signed statement of truth from the handwritten statement and paste it onto the transcribed statement without Ms P-J’s permission.
The transcribed statement was disclosed to the claimant’s solicitors and included in the trial bundle.
At trial on 10 October 2024, Ms P-J told the court that the transcribed statement was not the witness statement she had signed. The SRA said court time was wasted establishing how the transcribed statement had come to exist, while further time was spent as copies of the handwritten statement were emailed to the judge for him to print and distribute.
The regulator said a full explanation could not be provided to the court at the trial, leading to a further hearing being ordered. The director of the motor team at DWF Law LLP was also required to file an affidavit.
Mr Rose admitted that his conduct breached Rule 2.6 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs 2019, which requires individuals not to waste the court’s time.
He also admitted breaching Principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019, which requires those regulated by the SRA to act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons.
The SRA said a written rebuke was appropriate because Mr Rose’s conduct had the potential to mislead the court and others, wasted a significant amount of court time and had the potential to damage public trust and confidence in the profession.
It also noted that Mr Rose was a senior paralegal with more than 10 years’ experience and supervised others in his role. The regulator said a deterrent was required to ensure that others did not attempt to take similar shortcuts.
In mitigation, the SRA said Mr Rose had apologised, demonstrated regret and remorse, accepted responsibility for his conduct immediately and cooperated promptly and thoroughly with the investigation.
The regulator also noted that there was no evidence of dishonest conduct, no evidence of a pattern of behaviour, no adverse regulatory history and that the trial was not impeded by his conduct.
The SRA said publication of the agreement was appropriate in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process. Mr Rose agreed to the publication of the agreement.