Decision record
C B Izegbu, Samuel N Okoronkwo & Another
Allegation / charges
Breaches, Failures, Solicitors' Accounts Rules, Others
Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision
In a case involving three respondents concerning firms 'Jonathan & Co' and 'Alberts' (Alberts 1 and 2), a non-solicitor (Mr Okoronkwo) provided capital and effectively controlled solicitors' practices through sham arrangements. Ms Izegbu was found to have breached Practice Rule 7, entered a sham agreement, permitted a non-solicitor to control bank accounts, failed to keep proper books and failed to use a client account. The Tribunal made an express finding that she was dishonest, having given deliberately untruthful evidence intended to mislead it, and struck her off the Roll with £33,000 costs. The second respondent was found to have breached Rule 7 and account rules but acted from naiveté, not dishonesty; he was fined £5,000 with £5,000 costs. Mr Okoronkwo, a non-solicitor, was found to have entered sham agreements, operated client funds without proper accounts, and knowingly made a false statement about his professional record to obtain admission; he was made subject to a Section 43 order with £22,000 costs. Several allegations (including alleged sham arrangement with the second respondent and dishonesty findings from the earlier High Court intervention) were found not proved.
Duties found breached:
- Honesty
- Not mislead third parties or opponents
- No conflict between current clients
- Prompt accounting and return of money
- Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
- No improper fee-sharing or partnership
Aggravating factors:
- Ms Izegbu gave deliberately dishonest and untruthful evidence to the Tribunal despite an express warning from the Chairman
- Ms Izegbu sought to exploit a website typing error and fabricated an account of telephone advice
- Mr Okoronkwo was the lynchpin and driving force controlling the practices
- Mr Okoronkwo's lack of candour/disingenuous explanation on his admission application
Mitigating factors:
- RESPONDENT 2 was naive and disorganised rather than dishonest; honestly believed he was a partner
- RESPONDENT 2 acted promptly to bring the firm into compliance and was open with the Law Society
- RESPONDENT 2 had already lost his practising certificate and been made bankrupt
- Mr Okoronkwo bore lesser responsibility for the Izegbu arrangement having relied on her professional advice