§ discipline
‹ Back

Omer Mohammed Ghanti

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number10140/2008
Date01/01/2008
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Client Money, Failures, Others

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 85,000
Dishonesty foundYes

Omar Mohammed Ghanti, a solicitor admitted in 1997, faced allegations following a forensic investigation revealing a £709,615 cash shortage at Cromwell Solicitors LLP. The Tribunal found proved breaches of accounts rules (failure to notify clients of costs), acting in a conflict of interest, deliberate overcharging of clients Mr and Mrs G (the bill exceeding justified costs of c.£98,000 by transferring £302,000), and improper use of £260,000 of client monies held to Band Hatton's order. The Tribunal made an express finding of dishonesty in respect of the deliberate overcharging (allegation 4) but found only gross recklessness, not dishonesty, regarding the Band Hatton transfer (allegation 6). Ghanti was struck off the Roll and ordered to pay £85,000 costs, not enforceable without leave given his financial circumstances. His subsequent appeal was dismissed by the High Court.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Deliberate overcharging of clients Mr and Mrs G by approximately £169,000
  • Gross recklessness in transferring £260,000 of client/Band Hatton monies without reading the form
  • Failure to make timely, honest and open disclosure to Band Hatton of what had happened to the funds
  • Failure to cooperate fully with the investigation; did not provide a witness statement and gave no oral evidence on the substantive allegations
  • Cash shortage of £709,615.11 in the firm's accounts

Mitigating factors:

  • Approximately 35 character references / testimonials of positive good character
  • Firm's difficulties caused by an employee's involvement in mortgage fraud and departure of insolvency department staff
  • First Respondent constantly fire-fighting from February 2007
  • Health problems
  • Limited financial means

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/10140/