Chinwe Uzo Chikwendu; Undiga Emuekpere

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

Both solicitors at Riverbrooke Solicitors faced allegations over an Employment Tribunal costs matter for Client A. Allegation 1 (preparing a grossly inflated bill of £85,573.50) was found NOT proved against either Respondent, the Tribunal being unsatisfied the bill was grossly inflated despite poor time-recording. Allegation 2, against the Second Respondent only, was proved: she created a false/misleading attendance note suggesting costs of over £30,000 were discussed at a 29 July 2017 meeting when they were not, created later for the Legal Ombudsman investigation; the Tribunal made an express finding of dishonesty under Ivey, plus breaches of integrity and public trust. Allegation 3, against the First Respondent only, was proved: she failed to cooperate with the SRA by delaying nearly three months in responding to requests and a s.44B notice. Sanctions: Second Respondent suspended 2 years (strike-off held disproportionate due to exceptional circumstances - inexperience, isolated, no financial gain, no client loss); First Respondent reprimanded. Each ordered to pay £15,000 costs (£30,000 total), reduced from the £137,773 sought.

Duties found breached:

• Cooperate openly with regulators
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• Uphold public trust in the profession

Aggravating factors:

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

Mitigating factors:

• Both Respondents had unblemished regulatory records
• Second Respondent: dishonesty confined to a single entry in a single attendance note, no wider course of conduct, inexperience (first litigated case), no financial motivation, no direct client loss
• First Respondent: isolated lapse, low culpability, no material delay to proceedings, remorse, positive character references