The Tribunal’s decision dated 12 March 2026 is subject to appeal to the High Court (Administrative Court) by the Respondent. The Order remains in force pending the High Court’s decision on the appeal.

All four allegations before the Tribunal concerned alleged dishonesty, which had been found against Mr Okunniga in the Proceedings before District Judge Gilmore in the Coventry County Court. The first and fourth allegations concerned misleading the court in the Proceedings and the Enforcement Proceedings, the second concerned issuing invoices for money not owed to the Firm, and the third related to the sending of misleading letters in the name of the Firm.

Rule 32 (2) Solicitors Disciplinary Proceedings Rules 2019 (“SDPR”) states as follows:

“The judgment of any civil court, or any tribunal exercising a professional or disciplinary jurisdiction, in or outside England and Wales (other than the Tribunal) may be proved by producing a certified copy of the judgment and the findings of fact upon which that judgment was based as proof but not conclusive proof of those facts.”

The Tribunal, in determining its findings, took into account, but did not simply adopt, the judgments of District Judge Gilmore in the Proceedings and in the Enforcement Proceedings, although it was grateful for the clarity, cogency and thoroughness of her judgments. The Tribunal analysed all the documentary evidence before it, examined the written and oral testimony of the witnesses, and also assessed the absence of any evidence, particularly with regard to the merger referred to in Allegation 1.

The Tribunal found Allegations 1-3 proved in their entirety, including a finding of dishonesty. The Tribunal found Allegation 4 not proved on the balance of probabilities.