Solicitor “did not perceive risk” of failing to witness PoA properly

---

Cameroon: ‘Proxy marriage’

A solicitor who failed to properly witness a power of attorney (PoA) during the pandemic, stating that one of two donors had signed in her presence when she had not, has received a suspended suspension.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found that Elizabeth Oruene Ikiriko had not been dishonest or reckless, and instead her personal experiences of Covid, “her own emotional vulnerability, impaired judgement, and complete negation of risk perception” had left her “at the mercy of her own confirmation biases”.

The SDT said it was not convinced “even now” that Ms Ikiriko “clearly understood” the seriousness of her conduct and the potential for harm.

“Crucially, the public turns to a solicitor precisely because they can advise with cool detachment and do not allow themselves to be caught up in the personal matters of their clients.

“The drafting of a PoA is a significant and serious event and the rules on witnessing donors’ signatures are there for very good reason.”

The tribunal heard that Ms Ikiriko, admitted in 2002, 12 years after qualifying in Nigeria, was a sole practitioner at Melrose Solicitors in north London.

Person A complained to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) in September 2022 that Ms Ikiriko had signed a PoA as a witness in June 2021, stating that Person A had signed it in her presence with her then partner Client B, when Person A had never visited her law firm.

The SDT described the solicitor as “a credible witness who did not deviate in the account she gave”, while Client B was “a calm and credible witness”, whose evidence was “largely consistent” with Ms Ikiriko’s.

The tribunal preferred the evidence of the solicitor and Client B to that of Person A, who was found to be “somewhat confrontational under cross-examination”.

Despite the presence of an interpreter, “it was apparent from her responses that she possessed greater ability in her use of the English language than she cared to admit”.

Client B said he was in a “romantic relationship” with Person A between 2017 and 2022. In order to protect their newborn baby daughter, the PoA was signed to enable a “proxy marriage” to take place in Cameroon later that month. Client B paid Ms Ikiriko £60 for her services.

He said the proxy marriage was a “joint decision” by the couple to “avoid the stigma of single motherhood” during Person A’s planned visit to Romania.

The tribunal gave “significant weight to the extraordinary circumstances” surrounding Ms Ikiriko’s state of mind during the pandemic.

“The evidence revealed a practitioner who was medically vulnerable, had experienced what she described as a near-death encounter with Covid-19, and had suffered multiple bereavements of family members and friends during the pandemic.

“Most significantly, she was returning to work on the very day of the incident 1 June 2021 after extended confinement.”

The solicitor’s “desire to facilitate the couple’s marriage appeared to stem from deeply held beliefs that children should not be born outside wedlock and that she was helping to regularise their relationship for the benefit of their newborn child in difficult circumstances”.

Her “traditional moral framework, personal trauma, vulnerable medical condition, and established professional reputation over 22 years pointed to error in judgement rather than deliberate deception”.

Nor was Ms Ikiriko reckless. The tribunal “could not conclude that she perceived a risk and proceeded anyway” – rather, “she genuinely did not perceive the risk at all”.

The SDT found that the solicitor acted with a lack of integrity and had not acted in Person A’s best interests by failing to consider whether she had been subject to duress and/or coercion and whether there was a conflict of interest between her and Client B.

On costs, the tribunal criticised the way the SRA investigated the case, in particular its failure to interview Client B.

Had the regulator done this, it may have been able to review the case, “potentially withdrawing the dishonesty allegation and resolving matters without a contested hearing”.

Taking into account the SRA’s failure to prove dishonesty and its “inadequate investigation”, the SDT reduced the costs awarded from the £30,000 claimed to £20,000, and then to £15,000 to take into account Ms Ikiriko’s means.

She was suspended for six months, suspended for a year on condition that she undertook at least 10 hours of training on the SRA code of conduct and principles.