SDT: Solicitor showed limited insight
A solicitor who was suspended for a year after she was found to have been “grossly negligent” has failed in a bid to get conditions removed from her practising certificate.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) said it was concerned that Queen Appahoh had shown “limited insight” in her application, particularly in her treatment of the “significant financial client loss identified in the original proceedings” – a reference to the $2.2m lost by a client of her former law firm.
Ms Appahoh, known as Queen Gladys Appoh at the time of her suspension in 2020, was a salaried partner at south London firm Bilson Henaku when a client paid $2.4m to the firm in escrow monies, all but $200,000 of which was “dissipated in a series of unauthorised transactions”.
The tribunal said of the solicitor: “Whilst her conduct was not deliberate, and it appeared she may not have been entirely culpable, she had been grossly negligent.”
Along with the suspension, conditions were imposed on her future practice preventing her from acting as a manager or owner of a law firm, holding a compliance officer role, holding client money or working for a law firm without the approval of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
Ms Appahoh, who qualified in 2010, argued that, “having regard to the passage of time, her compliance with regulatory obligations, and the absence of evidence of any ongoing risk”, the conditions were no longer justified and they should all be removed.
She said they had significantly affected her ability to obtain employment, including positions other than that of a practising solicitor, “as they created the false impression that findings of dishonesty had been made against her when that was not the case”.
She said she had been unable to secure employment – she had only practised for around four months between 2021 and 2022 – and was currently reliant on state benefits, meaning the conditions had become “a disproportionate impediment to her return to work rather than a continuing protective measure”.
The SRA, which opposed the application, described the restrictions as “necessary, reasonable, and proportionate for the protection of the public and the maintenance of confidence in the profession”.
The tribunal said that not only was it concerned by Ms Appahoh’s “limited insight” but was “further troubled” by omissions in her application, including her failure to disclose a regulatory warning issued by the SRA in December 2022.
Ms Appahoh said this happened because she had notified her SRA caseworker about starting a new job but did not realise that the law firm had to obtain prior approval from the regulator as well.
The SDT accepted that she had undertaken “some training and engaged in mentoring and voluntary work, which indicated a degree of ongoing engagement with the profession”.
However, it was “not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence of recent relevant training or practice to demonstrate that the circumstances which justified the imposition of the restrictions had materially changed”.
Ms Appahoh had not shown that “risks previously identified had been sufficiently mitigated, in the absence of evidence of sustained practice, structured supervision, or clear oversight arrangements”.
She had also failed to show “a sufficient appreciation of the nature and consequences” of her misconduct.
“The tribunal was concerned that certain aspects of [her] evidence demonstrated limited insight, particularly in her treatment of the significant financial client loss identified in the original proceedings.”
The SDT accepted that the restrictions were onerous and had had an adverse impact on her ability to obtain employment.
However, it remained “satisfied that the protection of the public and the maintenance of confidence in the profession continued to require regulatory intervention”.
The SDT refused Ms Appahoh’s application and ordered her to pay costs of £1,500, taking account of her means.
Leave a Comment