Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Chinwe Uzo Chikwendu; Undiga Emuekpere

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number12521/2023
Date27/04/2026
OutcomeReprimand, Suspend - Fixed Period

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Code of Conduct 2011, Code of Conduct for Solicitors, REL's & RFL's 2019, Dishonesty, SRA Principles 2011, SRA Principles 2019

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

SanctionSuspension
Suspension24 months
CostsGBP 30,000
Dishonesty foundYes

Two solicitors at Riverbrooke Solicitors were tried over the conduct of an Employment Tribunal matter for Client A. Allegation 1 (preparing a grossly inflated bill of costs), brought jointly with alleged dishonesty, was found NOT proved against both. Allegation 2 against the Second Respondent (Emuekpere) was proved: she created a false and misleading typed attendance note suggesting costs of over £30,000 were discussed at a meeting on 29 July 2017 when they were not, later relied upon during the Legal Ombudsman investigation. The Tribunal expressly found dishonesty (Ivey test) plus breaches of integrity and public trust. Allegation 3 against the First Respondent (Chikwendu) was proved: she failed to cooperate promptly with the SRA. The Tribunal found exceptional circumstances (Sharma) making strike off disproportionate and suspended the Second Respondent for 2 years, and reprimanded the First Respondent. Each was ordered to pay £15,000 costs.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Second Respondent's dishonesty involved altering an important contemporaneous record relied upon in the Legal Ombudsman investigation, causing high harm to the integrity of the regulatory process
  • First Respondent's failure to cooperate occurred over a significant period despite repeated reminders and her seniority as manager/owner

Mitigating factors:

  • Both Respondents had unblemished regulatory records
  • Second Respondent's dishonesty was confined to a single entry in a single attendance note and was not part of a wider course of conduct
  • Second Respondent's inexperience (first litigated matter in a firm) and contextual pressures rather than financial gain
  • No direct financial loss to Client A
  • First Respondent's conduct was an isolated lapse of low culpability; document already held by SRA so no material delay to proceedings
  • Character references and expressions of remorse/insight

Codes & rules applied

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/12521/