Date
27 July 2023
Charges
15 charges of misconduct against Abraham Ojo were referred to the Disciplinary Tribunal as follows:
Charges 1 and 2
Abraham Ojo failed to maintain high standards of professional and personal conduct and justify public trust in himself, his profession, and the provision of legal services.
Contrary to Principle 2, Outcome 2.2 of the CILEx Code of Conduct 2015
Abraham Ojo failed to comply with his legal and regulatory obligations and deal with regulators promptly and co-operatively by failing to understand and comply with the law and regulation applicable to him.
Contrary to Principle 4, outcome 4.1 of the CILEx Code of Conduct 2015
In that in or around October 2015, when he applied for CILEx membership, he failed disclose full details of his prior conduct as required by Rule 11(1)(g) of the CILEx Investigation, Disciplinary and Appeals Rules 2015. He did not declare that he had been investigated by the Office of Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) who regulated his company Law Eagles. OISC had determined in April 2013 that he had breached multiple OISC Code of Standards. He knew or ought to have known that such a finding could be relevant to CILEx Regulation in assessing his suitability for CILEx membership.
Charge 3-5
Abraham Ojo failed to maintain high standards of professional and personal conduct and justify public trust in him, his profession, and the provision of legal services.
Contrary to Principle 2, outcome 2.2 of the CILEx Code of Conduct 2015
Abraham Ojo failed to comply with his legal and regulatory obligations and deal with regulators promptly and co-operatively by failing to understand and comply with the law and regulation applicable to him.
Contrary to Principle 4, outcome 4.1 of the CILEx Code of Conduct 2015
Abraham Ojo failed to act competently in the best interests of his client
Contrary to Principle 5, Outcomes 5.3 and 5.6 of the CILEx Code of Conduct 2015
In that between March 2018 and March 2019 he: acted for his client above his level of competence authorised by OISC, in submitting an application for Judicial Review which he knew or ought to have known he was not permitted to do;twice failed to attend the Tribunal to represent his client. He failed to make arrangements for alternative representation, putting his client at risk of having to represent themselves. He failed to make records of his advice and instructions in his client’s case; and submitted an appeal to the Upper Tribunal on behalf of his client, which was entirely lacking in merit, and made unfounded allegations about the First-Tier Tribunal judge.
Charges 6-8
Abraham Ojo failed to maintain high standards of professional and personal conduct and justify public trust in him, his profession, and the provision of legal services
Contrary to Principle 2, outcome 2.2 of the CILEx Code of Conduct 2015
Abraham Ojo failed to comply with his legal and regulatory obligations and deal with regulators promptly and co-operatively by failing to understand and comply with the law and regulation applicable to him.
Contrary to Principle 4, outcome 4.1 of the CILEx Code of Conduct 2015 and 2019
Abraham Ojo failed to act competently in the best interests of his client
Contrary to Principle 5, Outcomes 5.1 and 5.3 of the CILEx Code of Conduct 2015 and 2019
In that that between December 2017 and December 2019 he made an application on behalf of his client in which he relied on legislation which had ceased to be in use since 2012; wrongly maintained his arguments in a pre-action protocol letter and failed to tailor his arguments to the specific circumstances of his client. He failed to keep file notes of telephone interactions with his client, thereby preventing OISC from knowing what advice was given and when.
Charges 9-10
Abraham Ojo failed to maintain high standards of professional and personal conduct and justify public trust in him, his profession, and the provision of legal services
Contrary to Principle 2, outcome 2.2 of the CILEx Code of Conduct 2015
Abraham Ojo failed to comply with his legal and regulatory obligations and deal with regulators promptly and co-operatively by failing to understand and comply with the law and regulation applicable to him.
Contrary to Principle 4, outcome 4.1 of the CILEx Code of Conduct 2015
In that on 30 April 2019, in his application for Fellowship via work-based learning, he failed to declare the full extent of his prior conduct in writing to CILEx Regulation as required by Rule 11(1) of the CILEx Regulation Enforcement Rules. He declared only one investigation by OISC, whereas he had in fact been the subject of three other investigations which he knew or ought to have known could affect a decision by CILEx Regulation to authorise him as a Chartered Legal Executive.
Charges 11-12
Abraham Ojo failed to behave with honesty and/or integrity
Contrary to Principle 3, Outcome 3.5 of the CILEx Code of Conduct 2015
Abraham Ojo failed to maintain high standards of professional and personal conduct and justify public trust in him, his profession and the provision of legal services
Contrary to Principle 2, outcome 2.2 of the CILEx Code of Conduct 2019
In that between December 2019 and June 2023 he failed to ensure that the public and clients could not be misled as to the nature of the work he was permitted to conduct by continuing to advertise on his website that Law Eagles was authorised by OISC to provide immigration services at level 3 when he knew his authorisation level had been reduced by OISC in December 2019.
Charge 13-15
Abraham Ojo failed to maintain high standards of professional and personal conduct and justify public trust in him, his profession and the provision of legal services
Contrary to Principle 2, Outcome 2.2 of the CILEx Code of Conduct 2019
Abraham Ojo failed to comply with his legal and regulatory obligations and deal with regulators promptly and co-operatively by failing to understand and comply with the law and regulation applicable to him.
Contrary to Principle 4, outcome 4.1 of the CILEx Code of Conduct 2019
Abraham Ojo failed to act competently, in the best interests of his client
Contrary to Principle 5, outcome 5.6 of the CILEx Code of Conduct 2019
In that between March and October 2020 he acted for his client above his level of competence authorised by OISC in that he filed and conducted an appeal in the First Tier Immigration Tribunal, which he knew or ought to have known he was not permitted to do as a Level 1 immigration adviser.
Sanction – Exclusion – Fixed period
In accordance with Rule 30(5)(iv) of the CILEx Regulation Enforcement Rules, the Tribunal ordered an immediate exclusion from membership of CILEX for 36 months.
Outcome
The Disciplinary Tribunal found 15 charges, including dishonesty, proved on a balance of probabilities.
