Charles James Ete & Henry Onotere Mume

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

Charles Ete, sole equity partner of Charles Ete & Co and owner of Pride Solicitors, faced nine allegations arising from fraudulent conveyancing transactions. The Tribunal found that he made improper payments from client account to unrelated third parties (SC and MT matters) in breach of Rule 20.1, acted in transactions bearing hallmarks of fraud, caused a substantial client account shortage of several hundred thousand pounds, used the client account as a banking facility, failed to supervise and verify the identity/status of 'Person A', and failed to appoint a COLP/COFA at Pride Solicitors. Allegation 1.9 (failure to cooperate) was not proved. Critically, allegation 1.7 was proved with an express finding of dishonesty: he misled his professional indemnity insurer on a renewal form by failing to disclose circumstances likely to give rise to a claim after being told by another firm that a transaction was fraudulent. Six findings of lack of integrity plus dishonesty led to strike off; no exceptional circumstances found. He was ordered to pay £64,260 costs. The Second Respondent, Henry Mume, the firm's COFA, admitted failing to undertake the COFA role effectively (breaches of Principles 8 and 10 and SAR Rule 1.2(e)); given his low culpability and genuine insight he was reprimanded, made subject to an indefinite restriction order, and ordered to pay £7,140 costs. The First Respondent's appeal to the High Court was dismissed.

Duties found breached:

• Cooperate openly with regulators
• Diligence and timeliness
• Firm governance, systems and compliance
• Honesty
• Integrity
• No improper use of client money
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Supervise staff and delegated work
• Uphold public trust in the profession

Aggravating factors:

• Express finding of dishonesty (misleading insurers on renewal form)
• Repeated misconduct across multiple transactions
• Systemic governance and compliance failures extending over time
• Concealed the true position from his insurer
• Blamed others (Person A, Mr F, the SRA) and failed to accept responsibility for matters within his control
• Should have known the conduct breached his obligations
• High culpability and high degree of control as sole principal and sole signatory on client account

Mitigating factors:

• No previous disciplinary findings
• Over twenty years in practice with conveyancing only ~1% of work
• Was himself a victim of deception/fraud by purported clients and Person A
• Took (unsuccessful) steps to recover funds paid away and repaid a deposit to a buyer
• Cooperated with the SRA
• Personal pressures including caring responsibilities, stress and depression (held not exceptional and unrelated to dishonesty)