A convicted fraudster struck off almost 18 years ago has failed with a bid to return to the solicitors’ profession. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ruled that Horace Onobrakpeya had not done enough during the intervening period to show he should be allowed to return to the roll.
Onobrakpeya, now 61, had withdrawn money from the client account when he was not allowed to and also sent a false and misleading letter to another firm in the course of a conveyancing transaction saying that a transaction had been completed. The tribunal heard that Onobrakpeya’s firm was found to have a cash shortage of £428,000, although in the absence of accurate records this could have been as much as £1.7m.
Onobrakpeya told his first tribunal hearing that he had been forced to make money transfers by men threatening his daughter’s life, but also that he did not have a clear recollection of these events. The tribunal found he was not a credible witness and had acted dishonestly, including by giving untrue information to prospective insurers.
Onobrakpeya was subsequently convicted for fraud and jailed for five years, although he initially failed to mention this in his application for restoration to the roll.
He submitted he had reflected on his actions since he was struck off in 2008 and asked for the opportunity to ‘make good the damage’ he caused to the profession.
Onobrakpeya told an SDT hearing last month that during his time in custody, he carefully considered his behaviour and mentored young people. He worked as a Samaritan in prison and also as a housing officer, and tried to pay for the damage he caused to the reputation of the legal profession.
However his application showed little evidence of paid legal work since 2008 and he did not have a job offer pending. He stated that he had yet to complete relevant continuing professional development, but that training in professional ethics, accounts rules, AML, client care, and supervision was not applicable to his circumstances because he did not intend to undertake work where he needed to be a signatory to the client account.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority opposed the application, saying Onobrakpeya had failed to show adequate insight or reflection into the causes of the original misconduct, and that allowing him back would affect the good name and reputation of the profession.
Ruling that the high threshold required for restoration to the roll had not been met, the tribunal said: ‘Substantial monies were lost at the time of the misconduct, and all remain outstanding. The applicant had not adduced any evidence concerning practical steps he had undertaken to address the specific areas of conduct that led to the strike off.’
The application was dismissed and Onobrakpeya ordered to pay £2,590 costs.
