Ridita Rahman

Introduction

Ridita Rahman is a former anti-money laundering (AML) compliance analyst who worked in the London office of US law firm Debevoise & Plimpton from July to December 2024. She is not a solicitor, and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has barred her from working in legal practice without its permission after she posed as one of the firm’s lawyers during a private landlord and tenant dispute involving her partner: she used Debevoise & Plimpton LLP headed paper and her work email account, described herself as an “associate” of the firm, sent the tenant a notice of eviction, and falsely claimed the firm was acting for her partner — a man the SRA said “was not and had never been a client of the firm”.

Background Information

Rahman joined Debevoise & Plimpton’s London office — which RollOnFriday describes as “the elite US firm” — as an anti-money laundering compliance analyst in July 2024. The role was a compliance position, not a legal one: NonBillable describes her as a “former unqualified Debevoise employee” and a “non-solicitor”, and notes that she was employed at the firm from July to December 2024, roughly five months. Beyond that, the public record says little about her age, nationality or earlier career, and this page does not speculate.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated vs. alleged. The findings described here are regulator findings made by the SRA — the body that regulates solicitors and law firms in England and Wales — not criminal convictions, and none of the sources reports criminal proceedings. The sanction is an order under section 43(2) of the Solicitors Act 1974, an employment restriction that bars regulated legal businesses from employing her without the SRA’s written permission; it is not a criminal record.

According to the SRA, on 5 December 2024 Rahman wrote to a third party regarding a residential landlord and tenant matter between that party and her partner, who was the landlord. She used Debevoise headed paper, described herself as an “associate” of the firm, and corresponded with the tenant from her work email account. RollOnFriday reports that the letter falsely described her as an ‘Associate of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP’.

On 17 December 2024, Rahman used the same work email account to send the tenant a notice under Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 — described by RollOnFriday as a notice of eviction. The regulator found the notice to be “misleading” because it implied that Debevoise was acting on her partner’s behalf, and she also falsely claimed that the firm was representing him in the dispute. The SRA found that Rahman had “acted dishonestly” in giving the tenant the misleading impression that her partner had the firm acting for him.

Rahman left Debevoise & Plimpton the same day she sent the notice, 17 December 2024 — months before the firm learned of it.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The SRA imposed a section 43 order, which, as RollOnFriday explains, prevents regulated bodies and people from employing a non-solicitor: as NonBillable puts it, any solicitor, recognised body, or manager or employee of a solicitor or recognised body cannot employ her without written permission from the SRA. The regulator considered the restriction warranted given “the serious nature of her conduct which was dishonest”, and ordered Rahman to pay £600 in costs.

Debevoise & Plimpton itself was not made aware of the correspondence until May 2025, some five months after Rahman had already left the firm. The case was reported by the UK legal press on 22 July 2026, with RollOnFriday following on 24 July 2026 under the headline “Debevoise & Plimpton analyst who pretended to be solicitor banned from law”; commenters beneath that article seized on the reputational fallout, one writing, “How embarrassing for the firm. Really embarrassing. Really and truly embarrassing.”

Current Status

Rahman remains subject to the SRA’s section 43 order. She may not be employed in legal practice — by any solicitor, recognised body, or their managers or employees — without the SRA’s written permission, and she has been ordered to pay £600 in costs. She left Debevoise & Plimpton in December 2024, before the firm knew of the matter, and the sources do not report any appeal or any subsequent change to the order.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The dishonesty finding and the section 43 order together foreclose employment in regulated legal practice in England and Wales unless the SRA grants written permission. Rahman’s stint in legal-sector compliance had already ended in December 2024 — on the very day she sent the bogus eviction notice, and months before Debevoise & Plimpton discovered what she had done with its letterhead and her work email. The SRA justified the restriction on the basis of “the serious nature of her conduct which was dishonest”; her conduct was a misuse of her employer’s name in a private dispute in which the firm had no involvement, as her partner “was not and had never been a client of the firm”.

Sources

• RollOnFriday, “Debevoise & Plimpton analyst who pretended to be solicitor banned from law”, 24 July 2026. source
• NonBillable, “Ex-Debevoise staffer banned after posing as associate in personal tenant dispute”, 22 July 2026. source
• Legal Cheek, “Debevoise analyst posed as firm lawyer in tenancy row”, 22 July 2026. source