A K Kaihiva

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

Two solicitors of Kaihiva and Co faced multiple allegations of Solicitors Accounts Rules breaches, poor supervision, failure to honour undertakings (including one linked to a £605,000 bridging loan that was never repaid), failure to guard against mortgage fraud, improper costs deductions, and an improper agreement with the previously investigated firm Michaels and Co apparently to avoid intervention. The Tribunal proceeded in both Respondents' absence and refused an adjournment. All remaining allegations were found proved. No express finding of dishonesty was made. The First Respondent (principal) was struck off and ordered to pay £54,000 costs; the Second Respondent (salaried partner working ~2 hours/month) was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £6,000 costs. Total costs assessed at £60,000, apportioned 90/10.

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• No improper communication with the court
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Costs and fee transparency to client
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Supervise staff and delegated work
• Firm governance, systems and compliance
• No improper solicitation or touting

Aggravating factors:

• Clients suffered losses, including a lender loss of £605,000
• Agreement with Michaels and Co appeared designed to avoid an SRA intervention and allow continued trading
• Failure to enquire into deposit monies bearing hallmarks of money laundering
• Unadmitted caseworker permitted to give undertakings not honoured
• Failure to pay professional indemnity premium, putting clients at further risk
• Breaches continued over a prolonged period

Mitigating factors:

• Second Respondent relatively inexperienced (qualified 2006) and naive in joining partnership
• Second Respondent's role more minor, working only about two hours per month
• References provided for Second Respondent
• No previous disciplinary sanctions