SDT: Insufficient evidence
A solicitor struck off 16 years ago for multiple breaches of the accounts rules, several of them dishonest, has failed in his bid to return to the roll.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) decided that Cyprian Akpelishi Amgbah did not provide sufficient evidence of the rehabilitation he had undergone since he started working in the law again in 2020.
He qualified in 2002 but as the sole equity partner of a firm was struck off in 2009 for 13 accounts rules breaches.
These included withdrawing monies in excess of what he held for the client, providing banking facilities, making round-sum transfers from client to office account to aid the firm’s cash flow and making secret profits.
In relation to six of the allegations, he was found to have been dishonest. The High Court dismissed his appeal in 2010.
Mr Amgbah said he now accepted that the original tribunal was correct in its findings. He described the experience of being struck off as “humbling” and expressed shame for having damaged the profession’s reputation and public trust.
He asserted that his failures stemmed from “inexperience and a lack of proper oversight rather than from any malicious intent”; he now had a “far more comprehensive understanding of legal and regulatory frameworks”.
Since 2020, he has been working as an immigration caseworker at London law firm David Wyld & Co under restrictions set by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). In 2023, his permissions were expanded to include family law, probate and general litigation.
Mr Amgbah said being restored to the roll would “enhance and increase the effectiveness of his representation of clients” and would be “a step towards full professional responsibility, subjecting himself once again to the high standards expected of solicitors and demonstrating his integrity to clients, colleagues, and the courts”.
He was also happy to continue working under the restrictions as he had no intention of becoming a partner.
The SRA opposed the application, citing the seriousness of the original misconduct and the insufficiency of the evidence provided in support of Mr Amgbah’s rehabilitation.
The tribunal agreed. While his supervisor at David Wyld & Co, partner Grace Osewele, was positive about Mr Amgbah’s work and submitted that he had, in her view, been rehabilitated, the SDT noted “the infrequency of her professional interactions with him and the low volume of cases where she supervised [his] work”.
Though he had undergone training as part of his rehabilitation, this came in “a flurry” before he made the application.
“The tribunal found that this did not demonstrate a sustained commitment to maintaining and updating his knowledge and remaining abreast of developments in legal practice.”
It went on: “The tribunal found that the applicant had clearly taken positive steps towards rehabilitation; however the weight that could be attached to this was impacted by the applicant’s failure to support what had been said in evidence with supporting documentary material.”
As a result, given the seriousness of the misconduct, “the high threshold for restoration to the roll was not met”.
Mr Amgbah was also ordered to pay costs of £4,700.
The SRA and the Tribunal clearly require reforming. The current SRA have no idea of how to manage risk in the legal profession. They are partly responsible for the biggest financial failures the profession has witnessed in its entire history. It is shocking that they waisted finite resources and time on resisting this application.