A LAWYER who routinely claimed she worked 28 hours a day to nab a £70,000 bonus has been struck off.
Single mum Samina Ahmed, 46, asserted she worked longer than she had for 133 consecutive days, a tribunal heard.
Ms Ahmed, who has three kids, worked as a prison law solicitor at Tuckers Solicitors for nearly two decades and earned her wage from the Legal Aid Agency, which is publicly funded.
The mum inaccurately recorded working longer hours Between July 2021 and June 2022 despite warnings against her methods.
Ahmed has now been ordered to pay £5,000 in fees after the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal found it was “impossible” for her to have worked the hours she claimed.
She stated she had clocked in 7,511.70 hours over 266 days.
Broken down, this means Ahmed would have recorded a 28 hour work day.
The mum-of-three’s company subsequently held a meeting in April 2022 after suspicions were raised.
However, Ms Ahmad continued to falsify her time sheets in order to maximise her bonus, allowing her to bank 400 per cent of her salary.
If the lawyer’s plans weren’t foiled, Ms Ahmad would have netted an additional £69,300.
But a Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal held the opportunist to account, and she was soon let go.
The Tribunal said: “[We] found that Ms Ahmed acted dishonestly and without integrity in recording time against matters where she had not and could not have completed the work claimed.
“In so doing she had failed to uphold public trust and confidence in the profession.
“The Tribunal found that the seriousness of Ms Ahmed’s dishonest conduct was at the highest level and the resulting, foreseeable harm, both to others and to the reputation of the profession, was such that the sanction of striking off the Roll was fair, reasonable and proportionate.
“Ms Ahmed acknowledged that she was currently employed as an apprentice with Wigan Council and that her income was higher than when she had previously been employed in the retail sector.
“She submitted, however, that her income barely covered her outgoings and that she remained in receipt of universal credit and child benefit.
“She was a single parent to three children.
“The Tribunal took into account Ms Ahmed’s modest financial means and had regard to the case of Barnes.
“The Tribunal did not consider that Ms Ahmed was entirely unable to meet a costs order in a reasonable period; however, it considered it appropriate to reduce the total amount of costs to reflect a fair contribution, taking into account Ms Ahmed’s limited means.”
