Solicitor struck off for misleading client over tribunal claim

A solicitor who told a client he had submitted her claim to the employment tribunal when he had not has been struck off.

Isidore Ikechukwu Chukwudolue, admitted in 2008, admitted to all of the allegations against him including this his conduct was dishonest. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found all the allegations proved apart from one in relation to a message sent to the client which was found not to be dishonest.

Chukwudolue was a solicitor at North London firm Moorehouse Solicitors, where between 2017 and 2018 he failed to submit client A’s claim to the employment tribunal and sent false or misleading messages including that he was ‘still waiting to hear from the employment tribunal’ and had ‘called them several times’.

The SDT found he also submitted, or caused to be submitted, a claim form to the employment tribunal on behalf of client A after she had instructed another firm. He was also found to have submitted, or caused to be submitted, false and misleading documents to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

The 30-page judgment states that Chukwudolue was not a senior member of staff and had been, at all times, under the supervision of the sole practitioner. The firm had hired him to undertake immigration cases on a fee sharing arrangement. The SDT found ‘as a result of Mr Chukwudolue’s conduct, Client A was unable to pursue her claim at the employment tribunal’.

It added that though Chukwudolue ‘had committed serious misconduct, the amount of money involved [client A had paid £300 to the firm] was small’ and Chukwudolue ‘had made no personal financial gain from his misconduct’.

Chukwudolue was found to have submitted documents to the SRA that were ‘first created and then provided to the SRA solely in order to bolster Mr Chukwudolue’s defence to the criticisms he faced’.

The judgment said: ‘It was difficult to envisage a set of circumstances in which knowingly submitting, or causing to be submitted, false and/or misleading documents to the SRA could be anything other than dishonest.’

Striking off Chukwudolue, and assessing his culpability as ‘extremely high’, the panel said: ‘The tribunal determined that whilst there was seemingly no initial motivation for failing to submit the claim form to the employment tribunal, thereafter Mr Chukwudolue was motivated by his desire to conceal his failings.’ It added: ‘The harm caused to the reputation of the profession was immense.’

No order as to costs was made as the tribunal found ‘no reasonable current or future prospect’ of Chukwudolue being able to pay.