SDT: Solicitor was credible
A solicitor accused of dishonestly seeking more costs than his client was entitled to claim has been cleared by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).
Amadin Nicholas Ekhorutomwen was also cleared of providing misleading information about the costs claim of his client when she was acting as a litigant in person (LiP).
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) racked up costs of £127,000 in pursuing the case – and it can still claim costs in failed prosecutions so long as they are properly brought – but agreed here that each side should bear their own costs.
The SDT recorded that Mr Ekhorutomwen, who qualified in 2011, was at the time of the alleged conduct in 2017 the sole director of central London law firm Johnson & Steller. It closed in 2020.
The claim arose from his work for ‘Client A’ to defend a summary judgment application brought in a professional negligence claim that she had brought as a LiP.
The SRA alleged that Mr Ekhorutomwen prepared a schedule of costs for £11,000 when he had agreed a fixed fee of £5,000, and sought LiP costs of £8,500 when he had been told they were £1,206.
The application succeeded and so Client A’s claim was dismissed without the costs being assessed.
However, the SDT found that the retainer was based on an hourly rate and there was “no reliable evidence” that it had been superseded by a fixed-fee agreement – the £5,000 was meant to be a payment on account.
It said: “Client A’s understanding of the fee arrangement appeared to shift during her oral evidence and that her recollection of events from eight years prior was inconsistent and, at times, speculative.”
By contrast, Mr Ekhorutomwen was a “credible” witness. “While acknowledging that aspects of his correspondence were poorly worded and at times confusing, the tribunal accepted that these were the result of imprecise and careless drafting rather than any intention to mislead.
“The tribunal was satisfied that [his] explanation was consistent with the client care letter and the cost schedule reflected the agreement in place at the relevant time.”
The solicitor “took full ownership” of the mistakes in the documents. This was “consistent with his overall credibility and professional character” and also with the testimonials provided, including from senior members of the Bar.
There was no evidence that he had opened an email attachment from his client which contained the lower figure for the LiP costs; rather, he relied on a telephone conversation with her.
He had “no personal or financial motive to inflate the LiP costs”, the SDT noted.
It also rejected the suggestion that Mr Ekhorutomwen had inflated the LiP costs to exert leverage over the opposing party; rather, his actions were “consistent with instructions received from his client and that any errors were inadvertent”.