Amadin Nicholas Ekhorutomwen

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

The SRA alleged that the Respondent provided false/misleading information in a schedule of costs (profit costs and LiP costs) exceeding what his client was entitled to claim, advanced on the basis of dishonesty or, alternatively, recklessness. The Tribunal found the client care letter of 2 May 2017 established an hourly rate retainer, not a fixed fee, and accepted the Respondent's credible explanation for the £8,500 LiP figure based on telephone instructions. It found no credible motive for dishonesty (per Fish v GMC), found the Respondent a credible witness of good character, and concluded any errors were inadvertent. Both limbs were found not proved; all allegations dismissed. The Applicant had claimed £126,626.80 in costs but the parties agreed no order as to costs.