Nishaat Shamas
Saeed
Employee
7331039
Decision - Employee-related decision
Outcome: Control of non-qualified staff (Section 43 / Section 99 order)
Outcome date: 13 July 2026
Published date: 21 July 2026
Firm details
Firm or organisation at time of matters giving rise to outcome
Name: Elaahi & Co Limited
Address(es): 210 Coppergate House, 10 White's Row, London, E1 7NF
Firm ID: 648940
Outcome details
This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
Decision details
Who does this decision relate to?
Nishaat Shamas Saeed, whose last known address was in Chigwell, Essex, a person who is or was involved in a legal practice but is not a solicitor.
At the time of her conduct, Ms Saeed was employed as a paralegal at Elaahi & Co Limited (the firm), a recognised body located at 210 Coppergate House, 10 Whites Row, Spitalfields, London E1 7NF.
Summary of decision
The SRA has put restrictions on where and how Ms Saeed can work in an SRA regulated firm. It was found that Ms Saeed:
Allegation 1
On or around 19 February 2025, forged signatures in the client's and their sponsor's name on four Home Office declarations dated 10 February 2025 and uploaded them to the Home Office portal, which had the potential to mislead the Home Office into believing that the client and their sponsor, had signed those declarations when they had not.
Allegation 2
On or around 21 February 2025, edited and submitted a document to the Home Office purporting to be an A2 English language certificate dated 20 January 2025 achieved by the client, when the client had not completed such qualification at that time or at all.
Allegation 3
On or around 21 February 2025, fabricated an email regarding her client's immigration matter with a date of 8 February 2025 and a time of 6:00pm to mislead the firm into believing that she had sent the same to the client when she knew she had not sent it to them at that time or at all.
Allegation 4
On or around 21 February 2025, tampered with screenshots of images from her work laptop screen to mislead the firm into believing she had sent an email to the client on 8 February 2025 at 6:00pm, when she had not sent it to them at that time or at all.
The facts of the case
Ms Saeed was employed by the firm as a Senior Paralegal from 5 September 2023 until she was summarily dismissed on 24 February 2025. She worked in the firm's immigration department. Ms Saeed successfully completed the academic stage of qualification to be a solicitor and was due to start a training contract with the firm in June 2025.
Ms Saeed acted under the supervision of a manager of the firm for the firm's client in their application for an extension of leave to remain the UK.
During the course of her employment, the firm had concerns about her conduct relating to the client's immigration matter.
Ms Saeed admitted to the firm that she had forged the client's and their sponsor's signatures on declaration forms she submitted to the Home Office. She admitted to doing so to conceal her mistake in failing to send the forms to the client and their sponsor to sign before their application was processed by the Home Office.
She also admitted to falsifying a language test certificate in the client's name which she submitted to the Home Office on the client's behalf. She admitted to doing so to conceal her mistake in failing to advise the client that they were required to obtain the language test certificate for their immigration application.
During the course of the firm's investigation, Ms Saeed fabricated an email in an attempt to mislead the firm into believing that she had sent the declaration forms to the client and his sponsor for their signature before she submitted the client's immigration application. She also tampered with screenshots of images from her work laptop screen to mislead the firm into believing she had sent the email to the client.
The firm obtained evidence that the email had not been sent to the client and the screenshots from Ms Saeed's laptop had been tampered with, that the client's signature on the declaration forms had been taken from another document held by the firm and that the language test certificate appeared to have been edited. When challenged by the firm and presented with the evidence, Ms Saeed admitted her conduct and accepted that she acted dishonestly.
The client was unaware of and was not involved in Ms Saeed's dishonest conduct but despite this it had a significant detrimental impact on the client's immigration application.
Decision on outcome
An order pursuant to section 43(2) of the Solicitors Act 1974 was made as Ms Saeed's conduct meant that it was undesirable for her to be involved in legal practice without the SRA's prior approval.
This was because of the serious nature of her conduct which was dishonest and had a serious detrimental impact upon the firm's client.
Ms Saeed was also ordered to pay the SRA's costs of £600.
What our Section 43 order means
- no solicitor shall employ or remunerate her in connection with his/her practice as a solicitor;
- no employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate her in connection with the solicitor's practice;
- no recognised body shall employ or remunerate her:
- no manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate her in connection with the business of that body;
- no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit her to be a manager of the body; and
- no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit her to have an interest in the body
except in accordance with the SRA's prior written permission.