Solicitor cleared by SDT of dishonesty and misleading conduct in client costs dispute
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has cleared a London solicitor accused of dishonestly seeking higher costs than his client was entitled to claim.
Amadin Nicholas Ekhorutomwen, who qualified in 2011, was also found not to have provided misleading information about the costs claim of his client, who had been acting as a litigant in person.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority incurred costs of £127,000 in bringing the case. Although the regulator is entitled to recover costs in failed prosecutions where they are properly brought, it agreed in this instance that each side should bear their own costs.
At the time of the alleged conduct in 2017, Mr Ekhorutomwen was the sole director of Johnson & Steller, a central London law firm which closed in 2020.
Embed from Getty Images
The case arose from his representation of Client A in defending a summary judgment application. The application had been brought against her in a professional negligence claim that she was pursuing as a litigant in person.
The SRA alleged that Mr Ekhorutomwen prepared a schedule of costs totalling £11,000, even though he had agreed a fixed fee of £5,000 with the client. It also alleged that he had sought litigant in person costs of £8,500 when he had been told the correct amount was £1,206.
The application for summary judgment succeeded, resulting in the dismissal of the client’s claim. The costs, however, were never assessed.
The SDT found that the retainer was based on an hourly rate arrangement and that there was “no reliable evidence” to show it had been replaced by a fixed fee agreement. It accepted that the £5,000 referred to in correspondence represented a payment on account rather than a fixed total.
In its judgment, the tribunal observed: “Client A’s understanding of the fee arrangement appeared to shift during her oral evidence and that her recollection of events from eight years prior was inconsistent and, at times, speculative.”
By contrast, the tribunal described Mr Ekhorutomwen as a “credible” witness. It said that while some of his correspondence was poorly worded and occasionally confusing, this was due to “imprecise and careless drafting rather than any intention to mislead.”
The tribunal concluded that his account was consistent with the client care letter and that the cost schedule reflected the agreement in place at the time.
It also recorded that Mr Ekhorutomwen “took full ownership” of the errors in the documentation, noting that this was “consistent with his overall credibility and professional character” as well as with the testimonials submitted in his support, including statements from senior members of the Bar.
The SDT found no evidence that Mr Ekhorutomwen had opened an email attachment from his client which contained a lower figure for the litigant in person costs. It accepted that he had instead relied on information provided during a telephone conversation.
The tribunal also noted that Mr Ekhorutomwen had “no personal or financial motive to inflate the LiP costs.” It rejected the SRA’s suggestion that he had done so to exert leverage over the opposing party, finding instead that his actions were “consistent with instructions received from his client and that any errors were inadvertent.”
The tribunal dismissed all allegations of dishonesty and misleading conduct. It concluded that the mistakes identified were the result of drafting errors rather than deliberate attempts to misrepresent the costs position.