C B Izegbu, Samuel N Okoronkwo & Another

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

Three respondents arising from the firm 'Alberts', effectively owned and controlled by non-solicitor Mr Okoronkwo. The Tribunal found Ms Izegbu (First Respondent) had committed multiple Accounts Rules and Practice Rule 7 breaches and entered a sham arrangement; crucially it expressly found she was dishonest, lying in evidence to mislead the Tribunal, and struck her off, ordering costs of £33,000 (three-fifths of £55,000). RESPONDENT 2 (Second Respondent) was found at fault through naiveté with Practice Rule 7 and accounts breaches but not dishonest; he was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay £5,000 costs. Mr Okoronkwo, a non-solicitor clerk, had several allegations proved (sham agreements, operating client funds, false statement on admission application) and was made subject to a Section 43 order and ordered to pay £22,000 costs (two-fifths of £55,000). Total costs reduced and fixed at £60,000.

Duties found breached:

• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper fee-sharing or partnership
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Truthful, non-misleading advertising

Aggravating factors:

• Deliberate dishonesty and giving evidence intended to mislead the Tribunal
• Continued to lie after being warned by the Chairman of the consequences
• Mr Okoronkwo was the lynchpin and driving force controlling the practices
• Disingenuous/false statement on application for admission to the Roll

Mitigating factors:

• RESPONDENT 2 acted out of naiveté, was open with the Law Society, promptly made corrections, and was already bankrupt having lost his practising certificate
• Mr Okoronkwo had relied on Ms Izegbu for advice on Law Society Rules