Tribunal finds unreliable billing records and misleading attendance note, imposing suspension and reprimand
A solicitor has been suspended for two years and a colleague reprimanded after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found misconduct involving an inflated bill of costs and misleading records.
The case concerned Chinwe Uzo Chikwendu, owner and manager of Riverbrooke Solicitors Ltd, and consultant solicitor Undiga Emuekpere, arising out of work on an employment tribunal matter.
At the centre of the case was a bill of costs exceeding £120,000. The tribunal heard that this had been prepared using time records that were inaccurate and, in part, created retrospectively. The regulator argued that the amount claimed significantly exceeded the work actually carried out and was not supported by the firm’s files.
In its findings, the tribunal was critical of the evidential basis for the claim, concluding that the records underpinning the bill were unreliable and that the figures presented did not properly reflect the work undertaken. The case therefore raised fundamental concerns about the integrity of billing practices and the requirement that costs claims must be properly evidenced.
The tribunal also considered an attendance note produced during a Legal Ombudsman investigation. It found that the note contained inaccurate information, including references to discussions that had not taken place, particularly in relation to costs. The tribunal emphasised that documents created for complaints or regulatory processes must be accurate, as they may be relied upon by third parties assessing the conduct of a solicitor.
In addition, the tribunal examined issues around engagement with the regulator, including failures to respond adequately to requests for information. Taken together, the findings were held to engage core professional duties, particularly the obligations to act with integrity and maintain public trust in the profession.
In determining sanction, the tribunal said it had applied its guidance and adopted a “bottom-up” approach, assessing culpability and harm for each respondent separately.
In relation to Ms Chikwendu, it assessed her culpability as low, describing her failure to respond promptly to the regulator as “a lapse in professional judgment rather than any intentional decision not to cooperate”. While no direct harm was caused, the tribunal found there was “intangible harm to the reputation of the profession”, noting that solicitors are expected to engage with their regulator “promptly and transparently”. It concluded that the misconduct fell at the lower end of the spectrum and that a reprimand was a proportionate outcome.
In contrast, the tribunal found that Ms Emuekpere’s conduct involved dishonesty, meaning strike-off was the starting point. However, it concluded that the case fell within the “small residual category” where striking off would be disproportionate. The dishonesty was confined to a single attendance note and was not part of a wider pattern, nor motivated by financial gain.
The tribunal accepted that she had been dealing with her first significant litigated matter and had attempted to retrospectively justify costs “under pressure”, rather than as part of a calculated attempt to mislead. While the conduct caused “a high degree of harm to the integrity of the regulatory process”, the tribunal found that exceptional circumstances including her inexperience, the isolated nature of the misconduct and her previously unblemished record justified a lengthy suspension instead of strike-off.
Reflecting these findings, the tribunal reprimanded Ms Chikwendu and ordered her to pay costs of £15,000 in relation to the proceedings.
In respect of Ms Emuekpere, it imposed a two-year suspension from practice, commencing on 13 March 2026, and also ordered her to pay costs of £15,000.