Kemal Howard Gurpinar and Isidore Ike Nwokeji
- Applications 10011-2008 & 10324-2009
- Hearing 22 April 2010
- Reasons 24 June 2010
Case number 10011/2008 against Kemal Howard Gurpinar alone and case number 10324/2009 against Kemal Howard Gurpinar and Isidore Ike Nwokeji were consolidated by order of the SDT on 13 October 2009.
The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 2001), of Enfield, Middlesex EN3, should be struck off the roll; and that the second respondent (admitted 2002), of London N19, should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for year to commence on 22 April 2010. The first respondent alone had delivered late an accountant’s report for the six-month period ending 31 March 2007, which was due to have been delivered by 14 June 2007, in breach of a condition on his practising certificate for the practice year 2005/2006 and as required by section 34 of the Solicitors Act 1974 and the rules made thereunder; he had failed to comply with a condition attached to his practising certificate for the practice year 2005/2006; he had permitted client accounts to be overdrawn in breach of rule 22(5) of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998; he had failed to remedy breaches of the rules promptly as required by rule 7 thereof; and he had delivered late an accountant’s report for the six-month period ending 31 March 2008, which was due to have been delivered by 31 May 2008, in breach of a condition on his practising certificate for the practice year 2006/2007 and as required by section 34 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) and the rules made thereunder. The first and second respondents had failed to keep books of account properly written up for the purposes of rule 32 of the rules; they had paid client money into office account other than in accordance with rule 1 and rule 15 of the rules; and they had practised as solicitors through a business in the style of a Limited Liability Partnership without prior approval to practise as a recognised body, in breach of rule 12.01(1)(d) of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007.
The SDT had concluded that the first respondent was incapable of being regulated, that he had brought discredit to the profession by his refusal to operate within the relevant rules of the profession, and that he had exposed the public to risk and the profession to disrepute. The SDT found that the second respondent had entered into partnership with the first respondent and had thereby enabled the first respondent to practise. In doing so he had put his own practising certificate at risk.
The first respondent was ordered to pay costs of £32,993. The second respondent was ordered to pay costs of £3,189.
