Ngozi Pipi

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

The SDT found a sole practitioner solicitor (admitted 2003) at Edward Leonards Solicitors had breached numerous accounts and conduct rules, including failing to disclose material facts to lender clients in 14 conveyancing transactions bearing hallmarks of mortgage fraud, failing to supervise an unadmitted fee earner, providing inaccurate PII proposal information, failing to properly close his firm, failing to pay run-off cover, and failing to cooperate with the SRA. Two allegations (witnessing a signature in absence; and one against the Second Respondent re the K-O matter) were not proved to the required standard. No dishonesty was found. He was suspended for 30 months with practising conditions. The Second Respondent, a non-practising barrister conveyancing fee earner, was found to have failed to disclose material facts to lenders and was made subject to a Section 43 Order. Costs of £30,000 were apportioned £25,000 (First Respondent, not enforceable without leave) and £5,000 (Second Respondent).

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• Disclose material information to client
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• Handle inadvertently received material
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Professional indemnity insurance
• Orderly wind-down and contingency cover
• Report serious misconduct of others

Aggravating factors:

• Conveyancing transactions bore the hallmarks of mortgage fraud
• Wholesale failure to supervise the fee earner
• Cavalier approach to setting up practice
• Client files with confidential information left abandoned at premises after landlord took possession
• Repeated failure to respond to SRA communications
• Adverse consequences for lender clients

Mitigating factors:

• No previous disciplinary findings against either Respondent
• No finding of dishonesty
• First Respondent had only recently been in practice and claimed human error
• First Respondent admitted two allegations
• Second Respondent claimed she relied on the First Respondent as supervisor for training and guidance