Richard A A Adesakin & Babasoji O Doherty

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

Two partners of Vincent Doherty and Co faced SRA proceedings following a forensic investigation and intervention. The Tribunal found extremely serious breaches of the Solicitors Accounts Rules, including improper withdrawals from client account causing substantial client losses, client account used unconnected to legal transactions, poor accounting records, and failure to co-operate with the SRA. The First Respondent (Adesakin) was also found to have given inaccurate/misleading information to the LCS. An express finding of dishonesty was made against the Second Respondent (Doherty) regarding the improper withdrawal and transfer of £150,000 to a Credit Suisse account. Both were struck off (Adesakin from the Roll; Doherty from the Register of Foreign Lawyers). Costs assessed at £30,000, apportioned £12,000 (First) and £18,000 (Second), not to be enforced without Tribunal permission.

Duties found breached:

• Not mislead the court
• Proper basis for allegations
• No improper communication with the court
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports

Aggravating factors:

• Previous disciplinary finding in 2005 against both Respondents including failure to keep proper accounting records and failure to report hallmarks of mortgage fraud
• Substantial client account shortages (minimum £223,022.87 plus potential further £315,994) causing significant losses to clients
• Second Respondent's dishonesty and active deception of the Investigation Officer
• Sustained failure to co-operate over an extended period despite numerous requests

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent was deceived and kept 'in the dark' by the Second Respondent
• First Respondent did not personally benefit from the transactions
• First Respondent expressed remorse and apologised; provided character references and testimonials
• First Respondent's role characterised as inadequate supervision of a dishonest partner