Gbenga Adedapo Ogunrinde

• Application 10423-2010
• Admitted 1999
• Hearing 19 October 2011, 30 January 2012
• Reasons 2 March 2012

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll.

The respondent had conducted himself in a manner that was likely to compromise his integrity, contrary to rule 1(a) of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990 and/or, where such conduct related to a period after 1 July 2007, rule 1.03 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007; he had conducted himself in a manner which was likely to compromise or impair the good repute of the solicitors’ profession, contrary to rule 1(d) of the rules and/or, where such conduct related to a period after 1 July 2007, rule 1.06 of the code; he had submitted a document to the SRA, namely a Form RF1, for the year 2001/2002, knowing it to be false by stating that Folashade Mojisola Olowu was a partner in the firm of O S Johnson & Co Solicitors when he knew she was not a partner; he had submitted a document to the SRA, namely a Form RF1 for the year 2002/2003, knowing it to be false by stating that Olowu was a partner in the firm of O S Johnson & Co Solicitors when he knew she was not a partner; he had submitted a document to the SRA, namely a Form RF1, for the year 2003/2004, knowing it to be false, by stating that Olowu was a partner in the firm of O S Johnson & Co Solicitors when he knew she was not a partner; he had made representations in ­correspondence to the SRA which he knew to be false; at a hearing on 27 June 2006, he had allowed the SDT to proceed on the basis that at all material times, Olowu was a partner in the firm of O S Johnson & Co when he knew that was not true; and as a consequence of the conduct alleged at the third to seventh allegations above, he had acted dishonestly.

The SDT had found that the respondent had acted dishonestly and regarded it as a serious case of dishonesty. The conduct had been repeated over a number of years and had resulted in the respondent dealing dishonestly with the profession’s regulator, a fellow professional, the public, his professional indemnity insurers and the SDT. The repercussions of the respondent’s conduct on Olowu were profound.

She had found herself to be suspended from practice without fault and without her knowledge, with the consequent damage and loss of her reputation. She had also been made the subject of a costs order. She had had and continued to have the stress and inconvenience of having to fight to clear her professional name.

The SDT was also mindful of the case of SRA v Sharma [2010] EWHL 2022 (Admin) in which Coulson J had stated: ‘Save in exceptional circumstances, a finding of dishonesty will lead to the solicitor being struck off the roll.’ The SDT was satisfied that there were no exceptional circumstances. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £21,256.