A. Jimoh

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

The SDT found allegations proved against both respondents of Sovereign Solicitors & Partners LLP. The First Respondent (name redacted), firm owner, failed to supervise the Second Respondent, failed to ensure money laundering compliance, signed inaccurate certificates of title (failing undertakings), breached the Solicitors Accounts Rules, and left signed blank CHAPS forms/cheques accessible. The Second Respondent, Abdul-Aziz Jimoh, conducted four conveyancing transactions that were in fact property frauds, failing to verify third-party funders, check passports, report matters to lenders, and transferring completion funds before exchange. The Tribunal REFUSED the SRA's late application to add an allegation of lack of integrity and dishonesty against the First Respondent, accepting his explanation about discrepant attendance notes; no express finding of dishonesty was made. The First Respondent was fined £500 (reduced from £10,000 due to his parlous finances per D'Souza) with costs of £14,000 not enforceable without leave. The Second Respondent, more culpable, was struck off the Roll with costs of £21,000. Total costs assessed at £35,000.

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• No improper use of client money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Safeguard documents and limit liens
• Report serious misconduct of others
• Comply with rules of foreign jurisdictions

Aggravating factors:

• Lack of supervision allowed blatant property fraud to take place
• Lender clients suffered substantial financial losses; mortgage charges could not be registered
• Innocent registered proprietors had properties used in fraudulent transactions without their knowledge
• Second Respondent showed complete lack of probity and trustworthiness and was a serious risk to the public
• Second Respondent failed to engage with the proceedings

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent had been deceived by the Second Respondent
• First Respondent showed insight and made appropriate admissions
• First Respondent had a previously unblemished career since 2003 with no prior disciplinary matters
• Positive testimonials provided for the First Respondent
• First Respondent's dire financial circumstances