Struck-off solicitor’s comparison with George Floyd “a disgrace”

Black Lives Matter: Attempt to link case to movement condemned

A struck-off solicitor’s comparison of his treatment at the hands of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) with that of George Floyd by US police has been branded a “disgrace” by a tribunal.

It dismissed Michael Azuka Otobo’s bid for a rehearing of the case which saw him struck off in 2009.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) said that, without evidence, he had made a number of “serious allegations” of fraud, deception, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and contempt of court against a range of individuals and organisations.

The tribunal said it rejected all of them “in their entirety”.

It recorded that, at one point in his submissions, Mr Otobo sought to compare his complaints about the SRA and others to the circumstances of the recent death of George Floyd.

The tribunal chairman, Bellamy Forde, intervened “to require the applicant to show some reticence and demonstrate some respect for the fact that an individual had died”.

The ruling added: “[Mr Otobo’s] gratuitous reference to the death of George Floyd was grossly offensive and disrespectful and his attempt to link that incident and Black Lives Matter with issues of the applicant’s regulatory history was a disgrace.”

Mr Otobo was struck off in 2009 on multiple grounds, including acting as a solicitor prior to admission and later without holding a practising certificate, breaching the rules on supervision, and misleading or attempting to mislead the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.

Solicitors have 14 days to apply for a rehearing, but Mr Otobo first tried to apply for one in 2016, which the SDT rejected. The High Court dismissed his appeal.

Last December, he lodged a further application for leave to apply for a re-hearing out of time, on the basis that the Supreme Court decision in last year in Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd & Ors meant that, where there was evidence of fraud, there had to be a re-hearing.

He submitted that the 2009 decision was obtained by fraud, deception and perversion of the course of justice on the part of ‘NL’, his former business partner, “with the connivance” of the SRA.

He argued that the SRA had not brought proceedings against NL “due to their wish to rely on him as a witness against the applicant and because NL was white and the applicant was not”.

The ruling said: “In response to a query from the tribunal, the applicant confirmed that his claims for race discrimination had been unsuccessful. The applicant told the tribunal that these judgments had also been obtained by fraud and the tribunal should disregard them.”

The SRA submitted that NL’s role was irrelevant as Mr Otobo had been properly struck off in 2009 and nothing had changed since the 2016 application.

The tribunal said there was no evidence to explain the delay or why the application should now be granted.

“The applicant had placed much reliance on the case of Thakar. However, he had failed to demonstrate that there had been any fraud by anyone involved in the 2009 proceedings or that, even if there had been misconduct by NL, that the tribunal’s decision in 2009 was undermined by that or that it had any relevance to the allegations that had been proved. Thakar therefore had no applicability to this case.”

The tribunal concluded that the application was “entirely without merit, based as it was on nothing more than outlandish allegations and assertions which were not supported by any evidence whatsoever”.

It ordered Mr Otobo to pay costs of £13,200.

The ruling noted that he has appealed the decision to the High Court.

    Readers Comments

  • Stephen says:

    I think it is a disgrace for the SDT to fail to recognise the right of a black person to feel and complain of racial discrimination in any relevant circumstance ie. where prima facie, race is an obvious factor which the complainant believes is the reason for any detriment they have suffered. Granted the decision of the SRA did not result in anyone’s death, but that may simply be because its operations happen not to entail kneeling on anyone’s neck. That does not mean that those operations could not potentially be as racially hostile and brutal as those of the state officials whose operations sometimes legitimately entailed the use of force, which they thought justified kneeling on a black man’s neck on 25 May 2020. I’m afraid it is this type of irresponsible shaming and intimidation of racism complainants by the SDT that has allowed racist perpetrators to continue to operate with near impunity. Just this week, we heard the news with footage of a police officer brasenly warning an Asian man being apprehended to chill or be choked. And that, is in spite of the worldwide outrage and response to the police brutality of 25 May 2020 in Minneapolis still persisting till today. If racism is to be stamped out of society, it must be confronted with equal ruthlessness wherever it is found. There can be no principled or rational basis for suggesting black lives may only be said to matter when they are lost. By that time, it’s too late. If a repeat of the senseless brutality suffered by the late George Floyd (r.i.p) is to be prevented, every public official, indeed every member of society must be put in no doubt through regulations and their robust implementation that no ounce of racism will be tolerated in any part and from anyone in the society ever again.

  • Colin Peter wynter says:

    Where do we see that “race (was) an obvious factor” ? Reads like a straightforward decision to me. Invoking “George Floyd” as a fig leaf for a domestic, UK grievance is intellectually sloppy and, far from adding weight to any argument, undermines it by turning whatever point the gentleman may have been trying to make into an irrational, hyperbolic, emotional soup. That never wins.

  • Kent Pete says:

    Calm down, Stephen.

Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Will solicitors finally be fans of transparency now?

Since the introduction of the SRA’s transparency rules in December 2018, I have been an advocate for law firms going further then the regulatory essentials.

A two-point plan to halve the size of the SRA

I have joked for many years that you could halve the size (and therefore cost) of the Solicitors Regulation Authority overnight by banning both client account and sole practitioners.

Key cyber and data security questions to ask a legal IT provider

One of the growing priorities that law firms face when considering a legal technology provider is cyber and data security, such as their responsibilities and cyber incident management.

Loading animation