A lawyer who falsely claimed to have worked as much as 28 hours a day in order to qualify for a lucrative bonus has been struck off the roll of solicitors.
Samina Ahmed was found to have repeatedly falsified her timesheets while working at Tuckers Solicitors, where she had been employed for 17 years. An investigation revealed that over a 12 month period, she recorded 7,511.70 working hours across 266 days, with 133 of those days exceeding 24 hours.
The misconduct was uncovered in 2024 and linked to the firm’s bonus structure, which rewarded exceptionally high billable hours with bonuses of up to 400 percent of salary. Ahmed’s inflated records were intended to push her into the highest bonus tier, potentially earning her close to £70,000. No bonus was ultimately paid, as the irregularities were discovered in time.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard that Ahmed continued to falsify her time records even after being warned at a staff meeting. The tribunal also noted that much of her work involved prison clients funded by legal aid, meaning the hours claimed were paid for by the publicly funded Legal Aid Agency.
As a result of the false claims, Tuckers Solicitors was required to repay £98,093 to the Legal Aid Agency.
In its ruling, the tribunal said Ahmed had “acted dishonestly and without integrity” and that her conduct represented a serious breach of trust, both financially and professionally. It concluded that the seriousness of the misconduct and the foreseeable harm caused to public confidence in the legal profession justified the most severe sanction.
Ahmed was struck off the solicitors’ roll and ordered to pay £5,000 in costs, reduced from an initial £49,600 after the tribunal considered her financial circumstances. She told the panel that she now works in lower paid roles, including retail jobs and an apprenticeship with Wigan Council, and that she remains a single parent supporting three children while receiving universal credit and child benefit.
The tribunal acknowledged her limited means but said a reduced costs order was still appropriate, stressing that her actions had failed to uphold public trust and confidence in the profession.
