Isi Inyang & Simeon Olumide Coker & Nnanna Chrurchill Wagbaranta

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

The SDT heard combined cases against four respondents connected with Alpha Rocks Solicitors arising from litigation against a former client (Client A) over inflated/false bills, misuse of a £130,000 deposit, misleading the Court, and obstruction of the SRA intervention. Express findings of dishonesty were made against the First Respondent (failing to rectify the client account deficit and misleading the Court/intervention agent), the Second Respondent (transfer of deposit funds, pursuing improper bills/proceedings and misleading the Court), and the Fourth Respondent (giving false evidence to the Court and raising an exaggerated bill). The Third Respondent was found to have lacked integrity and acted recklessly but NOT dishonestly. Sanctions: First and Second Respondents struck off; Third Respondent suspended 2 years; Fourth Respondent (already off the Roll) prohibited from restoration and fined £50,000. Costs of £114,956.10 ordered subject to detailed assessment, apportioned 25%/50%/12.5%/12.5% with interim payments.

Duties found breached:

• Cease acting on client perjury or disobedience
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• Not mislead the court
• Prompt accounting and return of money

Aggravating factors:

• Misconduct was deliberate, calculated and repeated over a considerable period
• Concealment of wrongdoing from the Court and (for the Second Respondent) the regulator
• Breach of position of trust involving clients and the Court
• Personal financial gain (Second Respondent retained £15,000; Fourth Respondent received money from dissipated funds)
• Respondents knew or ought to have known they were in material breach of obligations
• Dissipation of £130,000 client deposit money

Mitigating factors:

• No previous disciplinary findings before the Tribunal for any respondent
• Positive character references
• Third Respondent cooperated with the SRA, made admissions, showed insight, had limited experience and resigned from the Firm
• First Respondent had limited experience of this type of litigation and relied too heavily on Counsel