Richard Ikechukwu Ugoh
Solicitor
488117

Decision - Agreement

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement

Outcome date: 19 January 2022

Published date: 25 January 2022

Firm details

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

Name: Liberty & Co Solicitors

Address(es): 624 Old Kent Road, London, SE15 1JB

Firm ID: 546506

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by agreement.

Reasons/basis

1. Agreed outcome

1.1 Mr Richard Ikechukwu Ugoh, a solicitor of Liberty & Co Solicitors, a recognised body, (the Firm), agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

1. he is fined £1,700.
2. his practising certificate for 2021-2022 is made subject to the condition that he does not carry out any form of attorney related work nor supervise any fee earner undertaking such work.
3. to the publication of this agreement.
4. he will pay the costs of the investigation of £1,350.

2. Summary of facts

2.1 Mr Ugoh has been a Partner at the Firm since 20 November 2010. Mr Ugoh’s main practice area is immigration.

2.2 On 2 August 2019, Mr A attended the offices of the Firm together with Mr B, his son. Mr B asked Mr Ugoh to sign as certificate provider a pre-completed form creating a Lasting Power of Attorney for Property and Financial Affairs (LPA/PFA) for Mr A, with Mr B as the intended attorney. Mr B was present throughout the attendance. Mr A was a walk-in client and was not previously known to the Firm.

2.3 Mr Ugoh signed the form for the LPA/PFA, although it was not his usual area of practice and charged Mr £100 for this service. Mr A did not speak English and Mr B acted as a translator between Mr A and Mr Ugoh. Mr Ugoh did not arrange to talk to Mr A separately in order to check that Mr A understood and was happy with everything that was being done for him.

2.4 The LPA/PFA was registered by Mr B with the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) on 4 October 2019.

2.5 On 11 October 2019, Mr A’s local authority care providers told the OPG of their concern that Mr A lacked the mental capacity to understand what had taken place on 2 August 2019.

2.3 The OPG carried out an investigation and ascertained that Mr A lacked mental capacity at the time of the execution of the LPA/PFA and that Mr Ugoh had failed to carry out his role as certificate provider.

2.4 In November 2019, the OPG commissioned a Special Visitors Report to determine Mr A’s capacity. The Report established a number of things about Mr A, in particular that Mr A:

1. had an Alzheimer’s type dementia (vascular), with significant memory impairment.
2. did not understand the concept of an LPA/PFA.
3. had a significant hearing impairment.
4. did not speak English and would have required translation in his native tongue for the completion of the LPA/PFA.
5. did not want Mr B to look after his money.

2.5 During this time, Mr B used his status as attorney under the LPA/PFA to misuse £5,000 belonging to Mr A.

2.6 The OPG submitted an application to the Court of Protection to revoke the LPA/PFA. The LPA/PFA was suspended, and a panel deputy was appointed to look after Mr A’s affairs.

2.7 In December 2019, the OPG reported their concerns to the SRA.

3. Admissions

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

That on 2 August 2019:

1. he failed to act in the best interests of his client, Mr A.
2. he failed to act within the boundaries of his competence when advising Mr A.
3. he therefore breached Principle 4 and Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

4. Why a fine is appropriate

4.1 The SRA’s Enforcement Strategy and its approach to the use of 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 Ugoh and the following mitigation, which he has put forward:

1. He has no previous history of this type of behaviour.
2. This is an isolated incident and there is no risk of repetition.
3. He has cooperated with the SRA’s investigation and shown insight and remorse.

4.3 The SRA considers and Mr Ugoh agrees that a fine is the appropriate outcome because:

1. Mr Ugoh at the time was an experienced solicitor, admitted to the roll since 15 July 2010. He should have been familiar with the ethical standards and safeguards that solicitors should implement when assessing whether a person is capable of entering into a transaction of this kind.
2. Mr Ugoh acted alone and therefore had direct control over, or responsibility of the circumstances giving rise to the misconduct.
3. Mr Ugoh showed a wilful or reckless disregard of the risk of harm both to Mr A and his regulatory obligations.
4. significant harm was caused to Mr A because Mr B misused Mr A’s finances. This was as a direct consequence of Mr Ugoh’s conduct.
5. Mr A was an extremely vulnerable client.
6. Mr Ugoh acted outside his expertise/competence.
7. A financial penalty is appropriate to maintain professional standards because Mr Ugoh’s conduct was serious, and a lesser sanction would not provide a credible deterrent to Mr Ugoh and others.

4.4 A fine is appropriate to uphold public confidence in the solicitors profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons. A financial penalty therefore meets the requirements of rule 4.1 of the Regulatory and Disciplinary 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, Mr Ugoh agrees that the nature of the misconduct was medium. Mr Ugoh’s behaviour showed a disregard for his regulatory obligation to act in the best interests of his client, Mr A, and he acted in an area that was not within his expertise. Mr Ugoh cooperated with the investigation and his conduct was not intentional nor form part of a pattern of misconduct. The Guidance gives this type of misconduct a score of one.

5.3 The SRA considers that the impact of the misconduct was medium because Mr A suffered a moderate loss. The Guidance gives this a level of impact a score of four.

5.4 The nature and impact scores add up to five. The Guidance indicates a broad penalty bracket of £1001 to £5,000 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 Ugoh put forward.

5.6 The SRA considers a basic penalty of £2,000, which is at the lower end of the bracket to be appropriate.

5.7 The SRA considers that the basic penalty should be reduced to £1,700. This reduction reflects the early admission made by Mr Ugoh to the SRA when this matter was investigated. This was an isolated incident and Mr Ugoh has shown insight into his conduct and he has agreed to a condition on his Practising Certificate which further mitigates the risk of further comparable conduct. In addition, Mr Ugoh has reflected on his training needs and intends to implement appropriate continuing professional development activities.

6. Why a condition is appropriate

6.1 The condition below is necessary, in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purposes set out in regulation 7 of the Authorisation of Individuals and the regulatory objectives and principles governing regulatory activities as contained in section 28 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

6.2 Mr Ugoh’s failed to act in the best interests of Mr A by providing a service in an area not within his expertise or competence. The imposition of a condition restricting his practice is a necessary, reasonable and proportionate way of managing the risk that he repeats his behaviour.

7. The agreed condition

7.1 Mr Ugoh agrees that his practising certificate for 2021-2022 is subject to the condition that he does not carry out any form of attorney related work nor supervise any fee earner undertaking such work.

8. Publication

8.1 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory process. Mr Ugoh agrees to the publication of this agreement.

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

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

10. Costs

10.1 Mr Ugoh agrees to pay the costs of the SRA’s investigation in the sum of £1,350. Such costs are due within 28 days of a ‘statement of costs due’ being issued by the SRA.