Disciplinary Record - Mohammed Akunjee

Decision - Prosecution

Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

Outcome date: 22 August 2023

Published date: 1 May 2024

Firm details

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

Name: Waterford Group Limited

Address(es): Prospect House, 67 Boston Manor Road, Brentford, Middlesex TW8 9JQ

Firm ID: 829765

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Reasons/basis

Outcome of SDT Hearing

This notification relates to a Decision to prosecute before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is an independent Tribunal which reaches its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Respondent. The Tribunal had certified that there was a case to answer.

The matter was heard on 9 – 11 July 2024.  

Mr. Akunjee was fined £6,500.  

The SDT judgment will be available at  www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk

Decision - Sanction

Outcome: Rebuke

Outcome date: 16 January 2024

Published date: 1 March 2024

Firm details

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

Name: Waterfords Group Limited

Address(es): Prospect House, 67 Boston Manor Road, Brentford, Middlesex, TW8 9JQ

Firm ID: 829765

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details

Rebuke, Publication & order to pay £1,350 in relation to our costs

Reasons/basis

Who does this disciplinary decision relate to?

Mohammed Akunjee is a solicitor at Waterfords Group Limited, trading as Waterfords located in Brentford, Middlesex, a regulated body.

Short summary of decision

The SRA has issued Mr Akunjee with a rebuke for breaching Principle 2 (failing to act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the profession and the provision of legal services).

Facts of the misconduct

It was found that between 12 November 2021 and 5 April 2022, Mr Akunjee posted three Tweets on Twitter which were abusive to such an extent that he breached Principle 2 and was reckless as to the harm he would or could cause to the trust and confidence the public places in the profession and the provision of legal services.

Decision on sanction

It was decided that a rebuke was an appropriate and proportionate sanction.

Mr Akunjee was issued with a written rebuke and ordered to pay costs of £1,350.

A rebuke was considered to be proportionate by reference to the following factors in the Enforcement Strategy and Topic Guide on social media offensive communications:

SRA Enforcement Strategy

1. Any lesser sanction would not be appropriate, not least as Mr Akunjee has already received a warning about social media abuse.
2. Mr Akunjee has taken remedial steps by deleting the tweets, but only after the SRA began to investigate him.
3. Some public sanction is required to uphold public confidence in the delivery of legal services.

Topic Guide

1. In the case of one Tweet, Mr Akunjee was responding to particularly unpleasant provocation.
2. Mr Akunjee’s language was abusive and intended to shock.
3. There is a lack of objectivity in his communications.

SRA Principles breached

SRA Principles 2019

Principle 2: You must act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons.