Solicitor's appeal against £20,000 SDT fine dismissed

A solicitor who was fined £20,000 after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found he had behaved inappropriately while interviewing a job applicant has had his appeal against the decision dismissed. A cross-appeal by the Solicitors Regulation Authority was also dismissed. 

Victor Nwosu, admitted in 2005, interviewed a 22-year-old, referred to as Person A, with a ‘glittering CV’ and a first class honours degree in law for a paralegal position in his firm. 

In February last year, the SDT found that Nwosu had behaved inappropriately in the interview, including asking Person A to turn around and saying words to the effect of ‘mmm, I like what I see’. He also asked if Person A had a boyfriend, a brother or brothers, and said that he only employed women and/or only beautiful women worked at the firm.

As well as a £20,000 fine, he was ordered to pay costs of £23,550.

Nwosu appealed the SDT’s findings and sanction; the Solicitors Regulation Authority issued a cross-appeal on the sanction alone, claiming it was too lenient.

The court heard that Nwosu, whose practice covers criminal and civil litigation, had no previous disciplinary findings against him and had ‘highly positive character references’.

Handing down his judgment following the morning hearing Mr Justice Jay said: ‘The issues in my judgment are relatively straightforward, the cross-appeal is somewhat more complex…because this court is being asked to interfere in evaluative assessment of an expert tribunal. 

‘I am prepared to infer that [Nwosu] does valuable service for members in his community and in the relevant geographical area. The SDT recognised [this case was] one person’s word against another’s because the SDT had rightly refused somewhat ambitious submissions of there being no case to answer.

‘The appellant did himself no favours in cross examination [during the SDT], he must have come across as somewhat arrogant and entitled and the personal attack on Person A and her integrity were misplaced. He could have left that exercise to his legal representative. Much of his evidence [in the SDT] was argumentative.’

The judge said Nwosu’s strategy of saying he, a solicitor, should be believed over a 22-year-old was ‘at best high risk’. He found the tribunal was right to find the allegations proven to the civil standard.

Dismissing the cross-appeal, Jay said: ‘[The SDT] took into account the appellant’s relatively limited means.' 

‘It is plain the SDT had regard for all salient features of this case including the appellant’s high culpability, the fact that this was…calculated misconduct…[and] the severe impact on Person A. The identification of the salient aggravating and mitigating features come after the SDT’s identification of these essential ingredients.

‘I consider that the tribunal did have in mind the deliberately calculated natures of the behaviour, [it being] sexually motivated…an abuse of power and other relevant factors of this case. As I pointed out to Mr Counsell in oral argument, this was not a situation where the appellant seeks to blame others.

‘This SDT considered the case very carefully indeed and came to a sensible and reasonable conclusion. Given that this case is in the realm of fine in the assessment of the SDT I can see absolutely nothing wrong with the assessment this was a very serious case of its type.'