B Ellis Dokubo

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

The SDT heard allegations against Boma Ellis-Dokubo (First Respondent, sole equity partner and fee earner) and a Second Respondent (salaried partner) of Beevers Solicitors. The firm collapsed and was intervened in, with major Accounts Rules breaches and failures to client (Mr W, Ms H, Mrs A, Mr B, Mr & Mrs D). The First Respondent admitted all allegations except dishonesty; the Tribunal found dishonesty proved in respect of four clients (Mr W, Ms H, Mrs A and Mr & Mrs D) for receiving and concealing/retaining client funds, but not in respect of Mr B. The First Respondent was struck off (and the Tribunal stated it would have struck him off in any event for the seriousness of the admitted misconduct). The Second Respondent, who admitted all his allegations and was found not dishonest, was suspended for two years (reduced to one year on appeal). Costs of £29,000 were apportioned £25,000 (First Respondent) and £4,000 (Second Respondent), several liability, not enforceable without leave but with permission to apply for charging orders.

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Act in the client's best interests
• Costs and fee transparency to client
• No improper use of client money
• Professional indemnity insurance
• Cooperate openly with regulators
• Report serious misconduct of others
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report

Aggravating factors:

• Dishonesty proven against First Respondent - deliberate course of conduct over a period of time
• Deliberate concealment of receipt and retention of client funds even when pressed by clients
• Kept client Ms H out of her damages for over two and a half years
• Exposed Mr & Mrs D to further court action, additional costs and an unnecessary CCJ damaging Mr D's profession
• Conduct resulted in significant liability to the Compensation Fund
• Clients exposed to great risk; harm serious and considerable

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent: no previous disciplinary findings; cited family distractions in Nigeria (though Response lacked detail)
• Second Respondent: early admissions of all allegations; cooperated with the SRA and complied with Tribunal directions
• Second Respondent not involved in the specific client matters where dishonesty was found; fault lay in inaction not active wrongdoing
• Second Respondent was a salaried (not equity) partner, excluded from the accounting process by the First Respondent
• Second Respondent impecunious with family responsibilities