Charles James Ete & Henry Onotere Mume

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

Charles Ete, sole equity partner of Charles Ete & Co and owner of Pride Solicitors, was found to have committed multiple breaches arising from conveyancing transactions bearing hallmarks of fraud. He made improper payments from client account to unrelated third parties (SC/MT matters), caused a substantial client account shortage of several hundred thousand pounds, used the client account as a banking facility, failed to supervise or verify an individual (Person A) practising as a solicitor, failed to appoint a COLP/COFA at Pride Solicitors, and dishonestly misled his professional indemnity insurers on a renewal form by failing to disclose circumstances likely to give rise to a claim after being told by another firm the transaction may be fraudulent. The Tribunal made an express finding of dishonesty (applying Ivey) and six findings of lack of integrity. Finding no exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal struck him off and ordered costs of £64,260. His subsequent appeal to the High Court was dismissed. The Second Respondent, Henry Mume, the firm's COFA, admitted failing to undertake his role effectively (breaches of Principles 8 and 10 and Rule 1.2(e)); given his low culpability, genuine insight and cooperation, he was reprimanded, made subject to an indefinite restriction order barring him from COLP/COFA roles without SRA approval, and ordered to pay costs of £7,140.

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• Integrity
• No taking unfair advantage
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• Act only on proper, lawful instructions
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Not misrepresent regulated status

Aggravating factors:

• Finding of dishonest conduct
• Repeated misconduct across two transactions
• Systemic governance failures extending over time
• Concealment of true position from insurer
• Blamed others and failed to accept responsibility for matters within his control
• Should have known conduct was in material breach of obligations
• High culpability with sole control of firm's bank accounts
• Significant harm caused to property owners and buyers who lost money

Mitigating factors:

• No previous disciplinary findings in over twenty years of practice
• Took steps to recover money paid to third parties (unsuccessfully)
• Arranged repayment of deposit monies to a buyer in one case
• Was himself a victim of deception by purported clients and Person A
• Cooperated with the SRA
• Conveyancing was only about one percent of firm's work
• Health-related caring responsibilities for his son and stress/depression (though not exceptional and unrelated to dishonesty)
• Dire current financial position