Recent court findings reveal serious allegations against a solicitor for manipulating case files to inflate costs.
- The solicitor reportedly attempted to charge nearly £260,000, despite actual invoices totalling only around £84,000.
- Judge James has highlighted discrepancies, including alleged unauthorised VAT claims and inflated hourly rates.
- The tampering is characterised as unprecedented in its scale, involving the creation of numerous backdated notes.
- Repercussions could involve regulatory scrutiny from the Solicitors Regulation Authority and HM Revenue & Customs.
In a significant legal development, a solicitor has been accused of manipulating hundreds of file notes to support an inflated costs claim. Allegations came to light when a detailed examination by Cost Judge James reduced the claimed fees from nearly £260,000 to nothing. The judge described the case as a severe instance of file tampering, potentially involving misconduct deserving regulatory action.
The solicitor in question, Sukhraj Multani, operated as a sole practitioner at RH Solicitors in West London. It is claimed that she sought to recover sums exceeding the actual client invoices in a boundary dispute litigation that spanned over a decade. The client’s invoiced amount was around £84,000, yet a bill of costs was presented for £258,583, a figure greatly surpassing the indemnity principle, raising serious disciplinary concerns.
Judge James identified that the supposed increase in costs derived from unauthorised VAT claims and higher hourly rates, without the solicitor being VAT registered at the pertinent time. Additionally, it was noted that numerous attendance notes were created retrospectively, effectively inflating the time records beyond the actual figures. The fabrication extended to altering original attendance details extensively.
Several examples illustrated this systematic alteration: exaggerated time allocations for counsel instructions, extended hours on relatively simple tasks, and inflated claims for attendances originally recorded as brief. This pattern of manipulation was so pervasive that it affected even the files of two preceding law firms engaged in the same case.
The judicial decision cited a precedent, Gempride v Bamrah, to emphasise that responsibility for certifying bill accuracy lies solely with the solicitor, and not with any costs draftsman involved. Judge James explicitly declined to attribute blame to the costs draftsman, Mr S Kumar, although expressing concern about his actions. Furthermore, the ruling exempted counsel from criticism, acknowledging their unawareness of the tampering.
This case stands as a stark reminder of the importance of integrity in legal cost certification.
