Skip to main content
discipline 4 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Daniel David Pipe

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number12424/2023
Date31/05/2023
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 7,350
Dishonesty foundNo

Daniel David Pipe, a solicitor admitted in 2002, was convicted on 6 September 2021 of attempted sexual communication with a child under 16 (s.15A Sexual Offences Act 2003) after engaging in overtly sexual online communication with an undercover police officer posing as a 13-year-old boy, sending explicit images and his address. He received a two-year Community Order and five-year notification requirements. He admitted breaches of Principles 2 and 6. The Tribunal found culpability and harm very high and, while acknowledging strong personal mitigation and that public protection was not a significant concern, concluded that only strike off would protect the reputation of the profession. No dishonesty was alleged or found. He was struck off and ordered to pay costs of £7,350.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Commission of a criminal offence which crossed the custody threshold
  • Deliberate and calculated conduct over a 90-minute period
  • Initiated sexualised conversation, sent explicit images and provided his address after being told 'Josh' was 13
  • Communicating with a person he was told was a vulnerable 13-year-old
  • Invoked his profession by referring to his work as a lawyer
  • Limited insight - cast himself as somewhat the victim and had not fully accepted the seriousness

Mitigating factors:

  • No previous disciplinary findings; hitherto unblemished 17-year career
  • One-off incident with no repetition in the intervening years
  • Self-reported the conviction to the SRA and cooperated with the investigation
  • Engaged thoroughly with rehabilitation programme; low risk of repetition
  • Strong character references
  • No Sexual Harm Prevention Order imposed; protection of public not a significant concern

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/12424/