A solicitor who doctored an attendance note to present to a legal ombudsman investigation has avoided the customary strike-off penalty for dishonest behaviour. 

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that Undiga Emuekpere, admitted in 2009, typed the note of a client meeting some 18 months after it happened in response to the ombudsman’s request for documents.

The complaints handler was looking into whether Emuekpere and her firm, London practice Riverbrooke Solicitors, had overcharged the client for advice on employment litigation. The typed note was produced, said Emuekpere, after her original handwritten note became illegible from rain damage. The original handwritten note had referred to a conversation about ‘escalating costs’ but the tribunal found that the solicitor added an extra section stating that she had told the client ‘we were definitely in above £30,000 in terms of our costs’.

It was found that this figure had not been discussed at the client meeting, despite Emuekpere continuing to insist she had spoken with the client about costs.

The tribunal found Emuekpere’s conduct to have been dishonest but concluded that the case fell into the small category of those with exceptional circumstances where a strike-off was not necessary. A panel deemed this was a single entry within a single attendance note and had not formed a part of a wider course of conduct. She was suspended for two years.

Its ruling added: ‘The combination of her inexperience at the time — this being the first litigated case she had undertaken within a firm, having come into legal practice via an academic route — the isolated nature of the dishonesty, the absence of financial motivation, the lack of direct client loss, and her previously unblemished record amounted, when taken together, to exceptional circumstances.’

Emuekpere and her manager, the firm’s owner Chinwe Chikwendu, were both cleared of preparing a grossly inflated bill of costs in the same matter.

The tribunal heard that the firm’s client care letter had estimated costs at £10,000 if the employment case was fully litigated and £6,000 if it settled before a final hearing. The final bill claimed almost £86,000, prompting the client to complain to the ombudsman who ruled that the final bill should be £10,000 plus VAT and disbursements. The ombudsman had referred the matter to the SRA after making its decision.

Emuekpere and Chikwendu had both denied inflating the costs, asserting the bill was based on genuine time records and substantial work done, and stating that the client was orally updated on escalating costs.

Despite the SRA’s expert saying the client had been overcharged by £36,000, the tribunal was not satisfied that the bill was grossly inflated. 

Chikwendu was found to have failed to cooperate with the SRA investigation and was reprimanded. Each solicitor was ordered to pay £15,000 costs.