Enyinda Chinda
Solicitor
484431

Decision - Agreement

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement

Outcome date: 16 March 2022

Published date: 18 March 2022

Firm details

Firm or organisation at date of publication and at time of matters giving rise to outcome

Name: Dylan Conrad Kreolle Solicitors

Address(es): 421 Hendon Way, Hendon Central, London, NW4 3LH England

Firm ID: 500054

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by agreement.

Decision details

1. Agreed outcome

1.1 Mr Enyinda Chinda, a solicitor of Dylan Conrad Kreolle Solicitors (the Firm), agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

1. He is fined £1,000
2. to the publication of this agreement
3. he will pay the costs of the investigation of £300.

2.1 On 14 September 2012, Mr Chinda was convicted at Hammersmith Magistrates’ Court for driving a motor vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath exceeded the prescribed limit.

2.2 The sentence was:

1. disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 3 years, and
2. a fine of £400.

2.3 Mr Chinda was also ordered to pay:

1. a victim surcharge of £15, and
2. costs of £85.

2.4 Mr Chinda did not notify the SRA of this conviction until 23 October 2020.

2.5 The severity of the sentence reflected a previous conviction for the same offence in 2009, before Mr Chinda was admitted to the Roll of Solicitors.

3. Admissions

3.1 Mr Chinda makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:

1. That by virtue of his conduct and conviction for driving with excess alcohol, he failed to behave in a way which maintains the trust the public places in him and in the provision of legal services in breach of Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.
2. That by not promptly reporting the conviction to the SRA, he failed to comply with his regulatory obligations to deal with his regulator in an open and timely manner in breach of Principle 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.

4. Why a fine is an appropriate outcome

4.1 The SRA’s Enforcement Strategy sets out its approach to the use of its enforcement powers where there has been a failure to meet its standards or requirements.

4.2 When considering the appropriate sanctions and controls in this matter, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Chinda and the following mitigation which he has put forward:

1. he regrets his conduct
2. no harm was caused to any persons or property as a result of his conduct
3. he has apologised for the delay in reporting the conviction to the SRA and has shown insight
4. he has provided evidence of his personal circumstances which affected both his conduct at the time and the delay in reporting the conviction to the SRA.

4.3 The SRA considers that a fine is the appropriate outcome because:

1. the conduct had the potential to cause significant harm to other road users
2. there was a reckless disregard of harm and his regulatory obligations.

4.4 A fine is appropriate to maintain standards and uphold public confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons. Any lesser sanction would not sufficiently address the conduct and provide a credible deterrent to Mr Chinda and others. A financial penalty therefore meets the requirements of rule 4.1 of the Regulatory and Disciplinary Procedure Rules.

5. Amount of the fine

5.1 The amount of the fine has been calculated in line with the SRA’s published guidance on its approach to setting an appropriate financial penalty (the Guidance).

5.2 Having regard to the Guidance, the SRA and Mr Chinda agree that the nature of the misconduct was low/medium. This is because:

1. The conduct arose as a result of recklessness. However, Mr Chinda has provided evidence of his personal circumstances at the time which had a material impact on his ability to think clearly. The evidence has been taken into account when considering intent and recklessness.
2. Mr Chinda had also received a conviction for driving with excess alcohol three years prior to this conviction.
3. Although there was a delay in reporting the conviction to the SRA, Mr Chinda made the report himself and has co-operated with the SRA investigation.

The Guidance gives this type of misconduct a score of one.

5.3 The SRA considers that the impact of the misconduct was low because there was no actual harm to others or damage to property. The Guidance gives this level of impact a score of two.

5.4 The nature and impact scores add up to three. The Guidance indicates a penalty bracket of £500 or £1,000 is appropriate.

5.5 In deciding the level of fine within this bracket, the SRA has considered the mitigation at paragraph 4.2 above which Mr Chinda has put forward.

5.6 Notwithstanding the evidence Mr Chinda has provided of his personal circumstances, the SRA considers that Mr Chinda was responsible for his conduct. Mr Chinda’s conduct demonstrated a reckless disregard of the possibility of causing serious harm to others or property and of his regulatory obligations. The SRA considers a basic penalty of £1,000, which is at the top of the bracket, to be appropriate.

5.7 Having considered the evidence Mr Chinda provided of his personal circumstances when considering the seriousness and nature of the conduct, the SRA does not consider there should be any reduction in the basic penalty.

6. Publication

6.1 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process. Mr Chinda agrees to the publication of this agreement.

7. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement

7.1 Mr Chinda agrees that he will not deny the admissions made in this agreement or act in any way which is inconsistent with it.

7.2 If Mr Chinda denies the admissions or acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be considered further by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary outcome or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations.

7.3 Denying the admissions made or acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of principles 2 and 5 of the Principles and paragraph 7.3 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

8. Costs

8.1 Mr Chinda agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of £300. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.