A. Jimoh

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

The SRA brought disciplinary proceedings against a firm's equity member (First Respondent) and a self-employed solicitor (Second Respondent, Abdul-Aziz Jimoh) at Sovereign Solicitors & Partners LLP. An SRA application to add allegations of lack of integrity and dishonesty against the First Respondent was refused as too late and prejudicial; no express dishonesty finding was made against either respondent. The Second Respondent had conduct of four conveyancing transactions that were in fact property frauds (registered proprietors unaware of any sale), where all non-mortgage funds came from unverified third parties, and he failed to report matters to lenders and released funds before exchange. He was struck off. The First Respondent was found to have failed to supervise, failed to ensure AML compliance, breached the Accounts Rules, failed to honour certificate-of-title undertakings, left signed blank CHAPS forms/cheques accessible, and published inaccurate website information. He was fined £500 (reduced from £10,000 owing to his precarious finances) with recommended continued practising conditions. Costs of £35,000 were apportioned £14,000 (First, not enforceable without leave) and £21,000 (Second).

Duties found breached:

• Not mislead the court
• Proper basis for allegations
• No improper use of client money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Report serious misconduct of others
• Honour professional undertakings
• Comply with rules of foreign jurisdictions

Aggravating factors:

• Lack of supervision allowed blatant property fraud to take place
• Lender clients suffered substantial financial losses and could not register their charges
• Serious damage to the reputation of the profession
• Public placed at risk; innocent registered proprietors subjected to property fraud
• Second Respondent failed to engage with proceedings

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent was deceived by the Second Respondent
• First Respondent made a number of admissions and showed insight
• First Respondent had an otherwise unblemished career since 2003 with supportive testimonials
• First Respondent's dire financial circumstances (likely bankruptcy)