A solicitor who accused the Solicitors Regulation Authority of racism over restrictions on his practising certificate has lost an employment tribunal claim against the regulator. Adekunle Soyege brought complaints of direct age, race and disability discrimination against the SRA and his claim was heard over seven days in Birmingham.

Solicitor loses discrimination claim against SRA over PC restrictions

In judgment, Employment Judge Flood said Soyege had a ‘genuine and strong belief’ he had been discriminated against but each allegation failed on the facts or because the tribunal had no jurisdiction. The tribunal ‘entirely accepted’ the submissions of the SRA that Soyege had not proved his case of direct discrimination.

The judge added: ‘We cannot conclude that the claimant’s age or race was a relevant factor in any treatment by the respondent.’

The claimant was a non-practising solicitor who identified himself as a black man in his 50s who was partially sighted. Admitted as a solicitor in 2003, he was a sole practitioner from 2013 onwards trading as Nat Jen Soyege Solicitors.

In January 2015 the regulator was notified by Soyege’s firm’s indemnity insurer that there was an outstanding balance. An SRA investigator visited the firm and subsequently reported that it was difficult to understand Soyege and it ‘appeared he may have been drinking’. This was mistaken as the solicitor was teetotal.

Meanwhile, Soyege complained to the SRA about another firm over its actions in a tenancy dispute. The regulator informed him no action would be taken as a result of the complaint, but he then raised a grievance about the way it had been handled, as well as a complaint about a block on his emails and an allegation of racial discrimination.

As a result of its initial investigation, the SRA made five allegations about his conduct, after which he sent hundreds of emails – described by the tribunal as a ‘constant barrage’ – to an SRA investigator. He at times used offensive language, he often copied in irrelevant other people and used different email addresses to circumvent restrictions placed on his main email account.

Soyege complained of racism in the way he was treated by the SRA but no evidence was found that he had been subject to any discrimination.

The SRA investigator recommended that restrictions be placed on Soyege preventing him from acting as a sole practitioner or law firm manager, and these were imposed repeatedly when he tried to renew his practising certificate. He sent the SRA a bundle of documents for a purported appeal which included a soiled fork within the package. The tribunal said this was an ‘unpleasant’ way for a Soyege to conduct himself.

When the restrictions were retained, Soyege continued to question whether this was because of his race. Again the SRA found no evidence of serious procedural irregularities or any evidence of bias or conspiracy against Soyege by its employees. He continued to challenge the restrictions, saying that he had incurred costs of £8m and was entitled to damages of £75m. The tribunal found that each year the SRA imposed restrictions, it had reviewed the decision in detail and set out its rationale in a detailed and clear manner.