Korie Rose
Employee
7331316

Decision - Sanction

Outcome: Rebuke

Outcome date: 3 June 2026

Published date: 4 June 2026

Firm details

Firm or organisation at date of publication and at time of matters giving rise to outcome

Name: DWF Law LLP

Address(es): 1 Scott Place, 2 Hardman Street, MANCHESTER, M3 3AA

Firm ID: 653260

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details

1. Agreed outcome

1.1 Korie Rose (Mr Rose), an employee of DWF Law LLP (the Firm), agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

1. he is rebuked
2. to the publication of this agreement
3. he will pay the costs of the investigation of £300.

2. Summary of Facts

2.1 On 3 September 2024 Ms P-J, a witness for Mr Rose's client, sent a typed witness statement with annotated handwritten amendments ('the handwritten statement') to the Firm. Ms P-J signed the statement of truth on the handwritten statement.

2.2 On 3 September 2024, Mr Rose inaccurately transcribed Ms P-J's amendments and annotations from the handwritten statement into a typed statement ('the transcribed statement'). Mr Rose then used Snipping Tool to cut the witness's signed statement of truth from the handwritten statement and pasted it on the transcribed statement without Ms P-J's permission. Mr Rose disclosed it to the claimant's solicitors, who included it in the trial bundle.

2.3 At the trial on 10 October 2024, Ms P-J informed the court that the transcribed statement was not the witness statement that she had signed. Court time was wasted establishing how the transcribed statement came to exist and further time was wasted as copies of the handwritten statement were emailed to the judge for him to print and distribute.

2.4 A full explanation of how the transcribed statement came to exist could not be provided to the court at the trial on 10 October 2024 and a further hearing was ordered. The Director of the motor team at the Firm was required to file an affidavit.

3. Admissions

3.1 Mr Rose makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:

1. His conduct breached Rule 2.6 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs 2019, which states that you do not waste court's time.
2. His conduct breached Principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019, which states that you act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons.

4. Why a written rebuke is an appropriate outcome

4.1 The SRA's Enforcement Strategy sets out its approach to the use of its enforcement powers where there has been a failure to meet its standards or requirements.

4.2 When considering the appropriate sanctions and controls in this matter, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Rose and the following mitigation which he has put forward:

1. Mr Rose has apologised for his conduct.
2. Mr Rose has demonstrated regret and remorse.
3. Mr Rose accepted responsibility for his conduct immediately.

4.3 The SRA considers that a written rebuke is the appropriate outcome because:

1. Mr Rose's conduct had the potential mislead the court and others.
2. A significant amount of precious court time was wasted as a result of Mr Rose's conduct.
3. Mr Rose's conduct has the potential to damage the public's trust and confidence in the solicitors' profession.
4. Mr Rose is a senior paralegal with more than ten years' experience.
5. Mr Rose supervises others in his role.
6. The conduct must not be repeated by Mr Rose or others: a deterrent is required to ensure others do not attempt to take shortcuts and copy the conduct.
7. There is no evidence of dishonest conduct
8. The trial was not impeded by Mr Rose's conduct.
9. There is no evidence of a pattern of behaviour.
10. Mr Rose has no adverse regulatory history.
11. Mr Rose cooperated with the SRA investigation promptly and thoroughly.

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. Mr Rose agrees to the publication of this agreement.

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

6.1 Mr Rose agrees that he will not deny the admissions made in this agreement or act in any way which is inconsistent with it.

6.2 If Mr Rose denies the admissions or acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be considered further by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary outcome or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations.

6.3 Denying the admissions made or acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of principles 2 and 5 of the Principles and paragraph 7.3 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

7. Costs

7.1 Mr Rose 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.