Tribunal cites gaps in evidence, lack of retraining and no proof of recent legal work in refusing application
A solicitor struck off for dishonesty and later jailed for fraud has failed in his attempt to return to the profession, after the tribunal found he had not met the “high threshold” required for restoration.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal refused the application of Horace Okeroghene Onobrakpeya, more than 15 years after he was removed from the roll.
Mr Onobrakpeya, who qualified in 2000 and was a partner at a south London firm, had been struck off in 2008 after findings of dishonesty, including misuse of client funds and providing misleading information in connection with a conveyancing transaction.
He was subsequently imprisoned in 2010 for fraud and abuse of public office arising from the same underlying conduct, serving a total sentence of six years.
In his restoration application, the 61-year-old expressed remorse and argued that he should be given the opportunity to repair the damage caused to the profession. He proposed practising under strict conditions, including supervision and a prohibition on handling client money.
However, the tribunal found significant gaps in the evidence presented. It noted a lack of proof that he had worked satisfactorily in a legal environment in recent years, describing this as a “notable deficit”.
There was also no evidence of prospective employment within the profession, nor of relevant retraining or structured rehabilitation sufficient to demonstrate readiness to return to practice.
While acknowledging that Mr Onobrakpeya had taken some steps towards rehabilitation, the tribunal said his oral evidence was unsupported by documentary material and failed to address the seriousness of the original misconduct.
In its judgment, the SDT concluded it was not satisfied that he had overcome the reputational damage caused or restored the trust required of a solicitor. Allowing his return, it said, would risk undermining public confidence in the profession.
The application was therefore refused, with the tribunal reiterating that restoration cases require compelling evidence of sustained rehabilitation and integrity.
Mr Onobrakpeya was ordered to pay costs of £2,590.