Izegbu & Anor v The Law Society of England & Wales

Section 43(1)(b) of the Solicitors Act 1974 requires a sufficient relationship between the employed person’s conduct and the solicitor’s practice in which that person is employed. A false statement about professional history may fall within the provision if the evidence is capable of establishing that connection; whether it does so is ordinarily a question for the tribunal. The tribunal must apply the criminal standard of proof, although failure expressly to recite that standard does not invalidate its decision where the decision gives no indication that a lesser standard was used. Appellate intervention is inappropriate where the issue is fact-sensitive and remains capable of proper determination on remission.

Mr Okoronkwo, who was not a solicitor, had operated a solicitors’ practice using Ms Izegbu as a front. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found several allegations proved against him under section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974, including knowingly making a false statement about his professional record to procure a Law Society qualification.

The Divisional Court allowed his appeal on three counts because he had not been employed or remunerated by Ms Izegbu, but remitted the fourth count for reconsideration because he had been employed by another solicitor, Mr Preedy, and the connection between the false statement and that solicitor’s practice remained arguable. The decision is referred to as [2008] EWHC 1043 (Admin). The reasons concerning Ms Izegbu’s appeal were separately given at [2008] EWHC Admin 1046. The Law Society abandoned its appeal, and Ms Izegbu sought to withdraw hers. The remaining issue was whether Mr Okoronkwo should receive permission to cross-appeal against the remission.

1. Disposition. Ms Izegbu’s appeal was dismissed on her non-appearance. Mr Okoronkwo’s application for permission to cross-appeal was refused. The Divisional Court’s remission order therefore remained in force.
2. Connection with the solicitor’s practice. The first three counts were logically inoperative because the evidence showed that Mr Okoronkwo had operated the practice and had not been employed or remunerated by Ms Izegbu. The fourth count was different because he had been employed in the practice by Mr Preedy. Under section 43(1)(b) of the Solicitors Act 1974, the false statement had to bear the necessary relationship to that solicitor’s practice. The application for admission, which linked the proposed practising arrangements to Alberts, and the formal arrangement with Mr Preedy were capable of establishing that relationship. The issue was fact-sensitive and had to be determined by the tribunal on remission. The typical, though not exclusive, case contemplated was misconduct by a member of a solicitor’s staff in the course of employment.
3. Standard of proof. The applicable standard was the criminal standard. It would have been preferable for the tribunal expressly to state that it was applying that standard, but its failure to do so was not enough to establish legal error. Some textual indication that an over-lax standard had been applied was required, and none had been shown.
4. Dishonesty point. The advocate’s answer that dishonesty was not alleged did not amount to abandonment of the fourth count. The count was pressed, tested in cross-examination and found proved. If relevant, the answer went to mitigation rather than disposing of the charge. The reference to Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley and Others [2002] UKHL 12 was not necessary to the decision.
5. Final directions. Costs relating to Ms Izegbu’s appeal were to be assessed on the basis of the solicitor’s work and the preparatory work of junior counsel. The costs of Mr Okoronkwo’s application were reserved to Lord Justice Sedley, pending the outcome or abandonment of the remitted disciplinary proceedings.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Ms Izegbu’s appeal was dismissed on non-appearance. Mr Okoronkwo was refused permission to cross-appeal. The Law Society’s appeal was abandoned.
• Divisional Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Mr Okoronkwo’s appeal succeeded on three counts and the fourth count was remitted to a freshly constituted tribunal. Ms Izegbu’s appeal was dismissed in her absence. The decisions are referred to as [2008] EWHC 1043 (Admin) and [2008] EWHC Admin 1046.