Olutayo Olaniran Arowojolu and Isaac Newton Patrice Carter

• Application 10084-2008
• Hearing 11 June 2009
• Reasons 18 January 2010

The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 1998), of Tayo Arowojolu & Co, Helen House, 214-218 High Road, London N15 4NP, should pay a fine of £5,000; and that the second respondent, of London N1, should be reprimanded. The first respondent had failed to keep his books of account properly written up, contrary to rule 32 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998; he had withdrawn money from client account other than as permitted by rule 23 of the rules; he had failed to remedy breaches of the rules promptly on discovery, contrary to rule 7 thereof; he had retained monies representing costs in client account, contrary to rules 19 and 20 of the rules; and he had provided misleading information to clients in conveyancing matters as to his firm’s costs, contrary to rule 3a of the Solicitors Costs Information and Client Care Code 1999. The second respondent had acted towards other solicitors with a lack of frankness and good faith; and he had provided misleading information to an officer of the Solicitors Regulation Authority during the course of an investigation.

The first respondent was the senior equity partner in the practice of Tayo Arowojolu & Co and had been responsible for the accounts breaches taking place within the firm which were of a serious nature. However, in the present case there had been no allegation of dishonesty, and the SDT confirmed it had not taken account of the first respondent’s previous appearance before it in October 2008, having accepted his submissions that the matters before it on the present occasion could and should have been dealt with at the same time as the matters before the SDT in October 2008. The SDT was of the view that the second respondent was less culpable than the first respondent, and noted that when he was interviewed by the investigation officer (IO), no caution had been given to him in circumstances which were particularly stressful. The SDT accepted the second respondent’s submissions that the solicitors on the other side had been fully aware of the circumstances of the transaction and that the second respondent had not deliberately misled the IO when interviewed some three years after events had taken place.

The first respondent was ordered to pay costs of £6,300, and the second respondent was ordered to pay £3,000 costs.