Solicitor banned for working for three firms at a time

Sarkodie, who claimed to work up to 100 hours per week, was employed by Property Legal (Manchester) Limited (PLS), Wright & Lord Solicitors Limited (W&L), and Muve (trading as Connect 2 Law) during the same period.

Is allowance instantly strangers applauded

Belinda Sarkodie, a solicitor, has been struck off by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) for working three jobs simultaneously and submitting fraudulent timesheets to multiple employers, claiming payment for the same hours on overlapping dates.

Sarkodie, who claimed to work up to 100 hours per week, was employed by Property Legal (Manchester) Limited (PLS), Wright & Lord Solicitors Limited (W&L), and Muve (trading as Connect 2 Law) during the same period. 

Between June 29, 2021, and July 16, 2021, she misled two of the firms by submitting timesheets for the same hours on the same days, while also working full-time at Muve.

Muve, her primary employer, had a contract with Sarkodie that required her to work solely for them. However, the SDT found that she misled Muve into believing she was fulfilling her full-time duties there while working at PLS and W&L simultaneously.

The tribunal heard that her performance at the firms was unsatisfactory, with complaints about her lack of availability, uncompleted work, and the need for colleagues to redo tasks she had been paid for. The SDT noted that the firms were dissatisfied with her work, especially when clients were left waiting for tasks that should have been completed.

Sarkodie defended herself by claiming she had worked hard in all her roles and had simply overstretched her capacity due to stress and tight deadlines. She also argued that she was unaware of any wrongdoing, citing her busy schedule and her focus on learning new systems.

However, the SDT concluded that Sarkodie’s actions were dishonest and a clear violation of her professional duties. As a result, she was struck off and ordered to pay costs amounting to £8,891.50.

The judgment emphasized that Sarkodie must have been aware that her actions were a significant breach of her professional obligations and amounted to taking unfair advantage of her employers.