G Okri & Another

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

Two solicitors were found guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor arising from a suspicious conveyancing transaction in which a Bournemouth property owned (in fact by way of an unregistered Deed of Gift to her daughter) by a 93-year-old widow was sold to a purchaser associated with a controlling third party ('Big Fish'), with the price suddenly halved from £300,000 to £150,000. The First Respondent (a partner) acted for the buyer while his associated firm (where the Second Respondent was an assistant solicitor) acted for the seller. Both took instructions from 'Big Fish', failed to make proper enquiries, ignored fraud warnings, and never properly verified the elderly seller's instructions. The Tribunal made express findings of dishonesty against both under the Twinsectra test. The Second Respondent's defence of duress (threats to kill from 'Big Fish') was rejected as the Applicant proved to the criminal standard he did not act under duress. The First Respondent was struck off; the Second Respondent, less culpable and junior, was suspended for two years. Costs (excluding supplementary statement costs, claimed schedule £40,980) were ordered to be assessed and apportioned 2/3 to the First and 1/3 to the Second Respondent, with an interim costs order of £7,000 against the First and £3,000 against the Second Respondent.

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• No taking unfair advantage
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• No improper solicitation or touting

Aggravating factors:

• First Respondent was the more senior and experienced, responsible for supervision, and more culpable
• First Respondent gave contradictory and not credible evidence
• Conduct enabled a fraud to be perpetrated on an elderly, vulnerable 93-year-old client
• Numerous ignored warning signs (halved purchase price, instructions solely from 'Big Fish', identity documents faxed from third party)

Mitigating factors:

• Second Respondent only 19 months qualified, junior and inexperienced
• Second Respondent acted under considerable pressure and threats from 'Big Fish' with little support from the First Respondent
• Good character references for the Second Respondent
• Second Respondent suffered depression with suicidal thoughts and psychotic symptoms
• Neither Respondent gained personally from the transaction
• Second Respondent stopped acting for 'Big Fish' after completion and later informed police