Peter Lankai Hesse-Lamptey & Kofi Agyeman

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

Two solicitors from Cephas Solicitors (both), with the Second Respondent also involved at Dolphine Solicitors, faced numerous allegations of SAR breaches, failures to honour undertakings, misleading conduct, conveyancing/mortgage irregularities and money laundering failings. The Tribunal made an express finding of dishonesty against the First Respondent (Hesse-Lamptey) in respect of the improper use of a mortgage advance (allegation 1.11, applying the Twinsectra test), though other misleading/mortgage-fraud-redolent conduct was found proved without dishonesty. He was struck off and ordered to pay £35,245.77 costs. No dishonesty was alleged or found against the Second Respondent (Agyeman), who was found to have abdicated his responsibilities and run the firms shambolically; he was suspended indefinitely (with the possibility of applying for removal) and ordered to pay £35,824.46 costs. Costs orders were made forthwith. The costs order was later successfully appealed and remitted for rehearing.

Duties found breached:

• Avoid wasting the court's time
• No improper communication with the court
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Keep client informed and respond promptly
• Complaints procedure and handling
• Advise on alternatives, settlement and outcome
• No conflict between current clients
• Handle inadvertently received material
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Honour professional undertakings
• No improper solicitation or touting

Aggravating factors:

• Very serious misconduct putting public at significant risk
• Undermining reputation of the profession
• Continued breaches of SAR despite a previous forensic inspection
• Second Respondent ran firms without control or effective financial stewardship
• Significant client account shortages

Mitigating factors:

• No previous disciplinary findings against either Respondent
• Second Respondent's conduct not necessarily incompatible with future practice (leaving open application to remove suspension)

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["unverified_costs_amount=71070.23"]