![David Lester (senior partner at Blythe Liggins), Darryl Barnes, Jagdeep Sandher (head of dispute resolution at Blythe Liggins)[4]](https://d1d8vslyhr7rdg.cloudfront.net/Pictures/274x183/4/2/8/116428_davidlesterseniorpartneratblytheligginsdarrylbarnesjagdeepsandherheadofdisputeresolutionatblytheliggins4_981603_crop.jpg)
Decisions filed recently with the Law Society (which may be subject to appeal)
Victor Nwosu
Application 12245-2021
Admitted 2005
Hearing 30 November-1 December 2021, 31 January 2022
Reasons 25 February 2022
The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £20,000.
While in practice as a solicitor at and owner of Dylan Conrad Kreolle Solicitors, when interviewing A for a paralegal/legal assistant position within the firm, the respondent had inappropriately said words to the effect of ‘mmm, I like what I see’; and told A that she was ‘pretty’, ‘very pretty’, ‘beautiful’ and/or ‘very beautiful’, or words to that effect, on one or more occasions. He had asked A if she had a boyfriend; if she had a brother or sisters; and told her that if she worked for the firm she would have to wear skirts and/or high heeled shoes, or words to that effect; and that he only employed women, and only beautiful women worked at the firm, or words to that effect, thereby breaching principles 2, 6 and 9 of the SRA Principles 2011, and one or more of outcomes 2.4 and 11.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct.
The allegations were advanced on the basis that, as an aggravating feature, the respondent’s conduct was of a sexual nature and/or sexually motivated.
The respondent’s conduct throughout the interview, the repeated and multifaceted comments made and questions posed, all of which were sexually motivated, were deliberate. He was highly culpable.
Obvious and significant direct harm was caused to A by the respondent’s misconduct, as was extensive, direct harm to the reputation of the legal profession.
A financial penalty commensurate with the seriousness of the misconduct would sufficiently protect the overarching public interest, namely the protection of the public, the declaration and upholding of proper standards within the profession, and the maintenance of public confidence in the regulation of the profession.
The misconduct was ‘very serious’ such that a level 4 fine reflected the deplorable, unacceptable and discriminatory manner in which the respondent behaved towards A on 30 April 2018. The SDT took into account the limited means of the respondent set out in his ‘personal financial statement’ and ordered that he pay a fine of £20,000.
The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £23,550.
