Skip to main content
discipline 4 October 2026
โ€น Browse decisions

Decision record

Dipakkumar Gopaldas Lakhani

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number8148/2000
Date01/01/2000
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Client Money, Failures, Solicitors' Accounts Rules, Others

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

SanctionStrike Off
Dishonesty foundYes

Solicitor Dipakkumar Gopaldas Lakhani was struck off the Roll after the Tribunal found blatant dishonesty. He gave false information to a client (falsely stating proceedings had been issued), failed to disclose material facts to mortgagee client TSB in four conveyancing transactions, submitted false and misleading Reports on Title, and created backdated false disclosure letters and an attendance note to cover up his failings after TSB sought compensation. He was also strictly liable (not culpable) for accounts rules breaches arising from his former partner's misappropriation of client funds. He was struck off and ordered to pay costs including the Investigation Accountant's and expert forensic evidence costs.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Dishonestly manufactured and backdated disclosure letters and a false attendance note to cover up shortcomings
  • Awareness of Law Society Green Card mortgage fraud warning
  • Preferred interests of purchaser clients over lender client TSB
  • Denied TSB the opportunity to make an informed lending decision
  • Law Society put to great time and expense employing forensic expert to prove falsity

Mitigating factors:

  • Made admissions, though late
  • No personal financial benefit obtained; documents created to save face
  • No client suffered uncompensated loss
  • Primary culpability for account shortages lay with his partner Mr Richmond
  • No criminal convictions
  • Strong written references and good character; hard working, diligent, competent

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/8148/