Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju

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

The Court of Three Judges heard 11 charges against Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju across two Originating Summonses. The charges fell into three groups: (1) repeated lateness/absence from court hearings causing unnecessary adjournments (Rule 55(b) PCR); (2) knowingly making false or misleading statements to the court (Rule 56 PCR), including a false certification that all parties were available for an adjournment when the AGC had objected, and false statements about instructions and prison visits; and (3) failing to keep a client informed of a hearing date, failing to advise him to surrender to a warrant of arrest, and advising the client to obtain a medical certificate under false pretences to excuse his absence. The court found all 11 charges made out and due cause established. It expressly found the Respondent had been fraudulent/dishonest in his dealings with the court (Groups 2 and 3). Rejecting the Law Society's proposed suspension, the court held that dishonesty almost invariably warrants striking off and rejected the notion of a 'spectrum of dishonesty.' Finding no material mitigating factors and significant aggravating factors (seniority and extensive prior disciplinary record), the court ordered the Respondent struck off the roll and ordered costs against him.

Duties found breached:

• Avoid wasting the court's time
• No improper communication with the court
• Cease acting on client perjury or disobedience
• Not mislead third parties or opponents

Aggravating factors:

• Seniority - Respondent was a senior practitioner of about 29 years' standing
• Extensive record of prior similar disciplinary offences (three-month suspension in 2013, fines in 2011, 2014, and 2015 for chronic non-attendance and lateness) demonstrating a propensity for such offences
• Persistent pattern of misconduct over several years despite prior penalties, showing recalcitrance and lack of repentance
• Conduct struck at the heart of the relationship between the solicitor as officer of the court and the court's core function of administering justice

Mitigating factors:

• No material mitigating factors were found by the court