Provided false medical certificate
An ex-Reed Smith associate has been struck off after dishonestly claiming to have cancer and submitting falsified medical evidence.
Soham Nitin Panchamiya, who was admitted to the roll in 2017, worked in the firm’s Dubai office. In September 2023, he applied for time off work, telling colleagues that his cancer had returned. He provided detailed descriptions of his alleged condition and treatment plan, initially requesting a week’s leave.
Panchamiya claimed to be suffering from a form of spinal cancer and gave accounts of the care he was receiving, according to a judgment published by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. In response, the firm asked for medical information in order to comply with local employment law. He initially resisted, telling the firm: “I have decided to stop treatment, so I am all good now. No further action needed.”
Following a meeting with the firm in October — during which he continued to give details of treatment — Panchamiya submitted a medical certificate purportedly signed by an oncologist.
On reviewing the document, the firm identified several inconsistencies and contacted the doctor directly. The doctor confirmed that he had previously assessed Panchamiya as part of a fitness examination but had found no evidence of any disease, indicating that the certificate was likely a “forgery”.
At a subsequent meeting, Panchamiya admitted that he had made a “big mistake”. He was then suspended by the firm.
Before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, Panchamiya admitted the allegations of dishonesty and falsifying the medical certificate. It was argued on his behalf that exceptional circumstances — including grief and poor mental health — meant that striking him off would be a disproportionate sanction. He had recently lost his father and was dealing with the legal and emotional consequences of that loss.
The tribunal rejected that submission. While expressing sympathy for his personal circumstances, it concluded that the dishonesty did not fall within the category of exceptional circumstances that would justify a lesser sanction.
In its judgment, the tribunal said:
“[T]hese acts of dishonesty were individually serious, and cumulatively extremely serious. The nature and extent of his dishonesty was significant. His dishonesty was deliberate, calculated and repeated. He was wholly and solely culpable for his dishonest acts. His initial act of dishonesty had been motivated by his desire to take time off work. Thereafter, he had continued to perpetrate dishonest acts in order to conceal his initial lie. He had abused the trust placed in him by the Firm..”
Panchamiya was struck off and ordered to pay £22,000 in costs.