Olubode Olugbenga Akodu

• Application 10809-2011
• Admitted 1994
• Hearing 14 March 2012
• Reasons 21 March 2012

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for the period of six months to commence on 14 March 2012.

The respondent had failed to pay the premium due for indemnity insurance for the indemnity year 2009/2010 to Capita (which manages the assigned risks pool on behalf of the Solicitors Regulation Authority) within the prescribed period for payment and was in policy default, in breach of rule 16.2 of the Solicitors Indemnity Insurance Rules 2009; he had failed to file an accountant’s report for the period ending 30 September 2010, contrary to section 34 of the Solicitors Act 1974 and rule 35 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998; he had failed to file an accountant’s report for the period ending 31 March 2011, contrary to section 34 of the 1974 act and rule 35 of the 1998 rules; and/or he had failed to comply with the condition imposed by the SRA on his practising certificate, contrary to rule 20.10 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007.

The SDT considered it a great shame that the respondent was appearing before it again. While it was evident that he had suffered significant financial difficulties which had led to the downward spiral of his circumstances, the SDT was most concerned that it was the respondent’s third appearance before it. It was also of note to the SDT that on both previous appearances before it, the respondent had faced allegations pertaining to his accounts and so he had again on the present occasion.

The SDT had considered all of the sanctions available to it, while balancing the need to impose a proportionate and reasonable sanction which would protect the public interest, the profession’s interests and serve to remind the respondent of his professional obligations in relation to which his conduct had been sadly lacking. In all the circumstances, the SDT ordered that the respondent be suspended from practice for a period of six months.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £3,000, such order not to be enforced without leave of the SDT.