Emma Smith
Employee
7814654

Decision - Agreement

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement

Outcome date: 21 July 2026

Published date: 23 July 2026

Firm details

Firm or organisation at time of matters giving rise to outcome

Name: Ascent Performance Group Ltd

Address(es): One, St Peters Square, Manchester, M3 2AF England

Firm ID: 570670

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by agreement.

Decision details

1. Agreed outcome

1.1 Emma Smith ('Miss Smith'), a former employee of Ascent Performance Group Limited ('the Firm'), agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of her conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

1. to the SRA making an order under section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (a section 43 order) in relation to Emma Smith that, from the date of this agreement:
   1. no solicitor shall employ or remunerate her in connection with his practice as a solicitor
   2. no employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate her in connection with the solicitor's practice
   3. no recognised body shall employ or remunerate her
   4. no manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate her in connection with the business of that body
   5. no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit her to be a manager of the body
   6. no recognised body or manager or employee of such body shall permit her to have an interest in the body except in accordance with the SRA's prior permission.
2. to the publication of this agreement.
3. she will pay the costs of the investigation of £300.

2. Summary of Facts

2.1 On 6 September 2021 Miss Smith joined the Firm as a Paralegal. She was promoted into the role of Senior Paralegal in April 2024 until the date of her dismissal from the Firm on 11 February 2025. Miss Smith is not admitted to the Roll of Solicitors and is considered a 'non-authorised' person.

2.2 In December 2024 Miss Smith was advised that a capability review would take place after the Christmas break. Between Christmas and New Year 2024, Miss Smith became increasingly 'unavailable' and difficult to reach during working hours. She failed to respond to calls, emails, and messages which highlighted billing concerns.

2.3 A complaint was received from a client on 9 January 2025. The client's concerns included lack of updates on certain cases, and failure to progress matters. This prompted an investigation by the Firm.

2.4 The Firm undertook a review of Miss Smith's client files and found significant activity gaps on most of Miss Smith's working days throughout the month of December 2024. Miss Smith was asked to account for these gaps during an internal investigation meeting held on 15 January 2025, but she could not do so.

2.5 A second Disciplinary Hearing took place on 11 February 2025Miss Smith admitted that it had been her intent to access the files quickly, (to appear as though work had been done on them) and that the information she had given in the initial investigation was false. She admitted that she had intentionally recorded time for work not done.

2.6 The outcome of the second Disciplinary Hearing was that Miss Smith was dismissed from the Firm for Gross Misconduct on 11 February 2025.

2.7 There is sufficient evidence to establish that Ms Smith recorded time for work not undertaken on four client matters, totalling 2.6 units.

3. Admissions

3.1 Miss Smith makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:

1. Miss Smith admits that she had intentionally recorded time for work not done.
2. That her conduct makes it undesirable for her to be involved in a legal practice.
3. That her conduct set out above was dishonest.

4. Why a section 43 order is appropriate

4.1 The SRA's Enforcement Strategy and its guidance on how it regulates nonauthorised persons, sets out its approach to using section 43 orders to control where a non-authorised person can work.

4.2 When considering whether a section 43 order is appropriate in this matter, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Miss Smith and the mitigation which she has put forward:

1. she suffered a family bereavement prior to the conduct concerns which had a significant effect on her well-being.
2. acknowledgement of wrongdoing during the Firm's disciplinary process.
3. no previous regulatory history.

4.3 The SRA and Emma Smith agree that a section 43 order is appropriate because:

1. Miss Smith is not a solicitor.
2. Miss Smith carried out work in the name of, or under the direction or supervision of a, solicitor which means she was involved in a legal practice.
3. by acting dishonestly Miss Smith has occasioned or been party to an act or default in relation to a legal practice.

4.4 Miss Smith's conduct makes it undesirable for her to be involved in a legal practice because she has admitted to falsely recording the time she had spent working on client files and she initially mislead the Firm during their investigation.

5. Publication

5.1 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process. Miss Smith agrees to the publication of this agreement.

6. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement

6.1 Miss Smith agrees that she will not deny the admissions made in this agreement or act in any way which is inconsistent with it.

7. Costs

7.1 Miss Smith agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of £300. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.