Please note that articles may contain affilitate links. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Thursday, 30 September 2021

Walter Mitty Paralegal Pretended to be Barrister

A Walter Mitty paralegal has been convicted of pretending to be a barrister when she represented a client in the Magistrates' Court.

Clorissa Paynter, 31, of Elmley Street, Woolwich, London, admitted performing a reserved legal activity when she was not entitled to do so when she appeared at Oxford Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 30th September 2021.

This is an offence under section 14 of the Legal Services Act 2007. The maximum penalty for this offence is 6 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 2 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

Magistrates heard that Paynter represented a paying client at Slough Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 25th March 2021.

She introduced herself as counsel, thereby implying that she was a qualified barrister with rights of audience. In fact, she was a paralegal working for a probate firm and had no such rights of audience.

Her client admitted drug driving, so the job of mitigation fell to Paynter.

Prosecutor Clare Barclay described what happened when Paynter and her client arrived at court.

Ms Barclay said: "She arrived with him, identified herself as counsel to security and an usher and, when called, the legal adviser asked her to identify her instructing solicitor and Ms Paynter said she was acting privately and confirmed she was under the direct access scheme.

"Evidently, Ms Paynter mitigated rather poorly from the defence lawyer's bench, which aroused suspicion [from] the prosecutor and the legal adviser."

Paynter was brought back before the court when enquiries revealed that she was not actually a barrister. At that stage she admitted being a paralegal.

David Hicks, mitigating, said that Paynter's actions had not come "from a bad place". She had been hired by the client and put considerable work into his case, which she wanted to see through to completion.


The "criminality in the case", Mr Hicks said, was Paynter wrongly telling court staff that she was a direct access barrister.

"In a police interview she realised at that point, having been put on the spot she answered incorrectly," Mr Hicks said.

"Nobody has lost out financially in respect of this matter and the person she was representing has not been misled, which in my submission would be the most serious part of this offence."

Mr Hicks said that his client had lost her job with the probate firm and was now working at an estate agency. She was a single mother of two children and of previous good character.

Paynter was fined £369 and ordered to pay £85 towards prosecution costs and £37 victim surcharge.

Yvette Hutchinson JP, Presiding Justice, told her: "You now leave with a conviction for this offence."

In accordance with section 13 of the Act only an authorised or exempt person has rights of audience before the court.

An authorised person is one holding a professional legal qualification such as a barrister or solicitor; an exempt person is one who requests and is granted rights of audience by the court on a particular occasion.

No comments: