Vincent Okey Udah, Ozomena Francis Nwogbo, Thomas Ejikeme Oli and Marylyn Obianuju Okoye
- Application 10126-2008
- Hearing 22 September 2009
- Reasons 7 June 2010
The SDT ordered that the first respondent (admitted 2003), of London N1, should be struck off the roll; and that the fourth respondent (admitted 2005), of London SE15 should be reprimanded.
Having considered all the evidence, the SDT was not satisfied that either the second or third respondent had a case to answer. Although the SDT considered that the case had been properly brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the SDT was not satisfied that either the second or third respondent had been a partner in the firm or had been facilitating or participating in a sham partnership. The SDT saw both men as victims of the first respondent. The SDT was not minded to make any orders for costs against them. The first respondent had, contrary to rule 1 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007, left his practice unattended; contrary to rule 6 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998, he had failed to ensure compliance with the rules; he had withdrawn money from client account other than as permitted by rule 22 (1) of the rules; and contrary to rule 20.03 of the code, he had failed to reply to correspondence from the SRA and/or cooperate.
The first and fourth respondents had, contrary to rule 19(5) of the rules, paid monies in respect of an agreed fee into client bank account; they had withdrawn money from client account other than as permitted by rule 22 (1) of the rules; they had failed to keep accounts properly written up in accordance with rule 32 of the rules; they had failed to carry out the required reconciliations, contrary to rule 32(7) of the rules; they had failed to disclose material information to lender clients; they had failed to provide adequate or sufficient costs information, contrary to rule 15 of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990; and they had failed to maintain a file of copy bills, contrary to rule 32 (8) of the 1998 rules. Furthermore, the first respondent alone had misled clients as to the identity and/or status of the person having conduct of client matter(s); he had failed to act in accordance with lender clients instructions; he had dishonestly and improperly paid away funds held on behalf of mortgagee clients, to third parties not entitled to the said funds; he had failed and/or delayed in the filing of an accountant’s report for the period ending 15 January 2008, due for delivery on or before 15 July 2008, contrary to section 34 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended) and the rules made thereunder; and he had failed to comply with a direction of the adjudicator dated 18 November 2008.
Having considered all the evidence and the helpful submissions of the applicant and on behalf of the fourth respondent, and noting her denial of personal culpability in respect of her limited involvement in the firm, the SDT accepted that her admissions of Accounts Rules breaches were made on a strict liability basis only. The SDT also noted that the fourth respondent had cooperated fully with the SRA from the outset. The SDT found that the first respondent had been the instigator of an appalling fraud, whereby a number of transactions had been set up by the firm, resulting in the firm having received mortgage advances aggregating over £5m where the transactions had not been completed and the mortgage monies had been paid away to persons not entitled shortly prior to the practice being abandoned by the first respondent. He had been guilty of systematic dishonesty in his dealings with lenders. The first respondent was ordered to pay costs of £36,223. The fourth respondent was ordered to pay costs of £500.
