Ngozi Pipi

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

The First Respondent, a sole practitioner solicitor at Edward Leonards Solicitors, faced multiple allegations arising from an SRA forensic investigation, including accounts rules breaches, failure to disclose material facts to lender clients in conveyancing transactions bearing hallmarks of mortgage fraud, inadequate supervision of an unadmitted fee earner (the Second Respondent), inaccurate PII proposal information, failure to close his firm properly, failure to co-operate with the SRA, and failure to pay run-off cover premium. Most allegations were proved; the allegation that he witnessed a mortgage deed signature outside the signatory's presence was not substantiated due to insufficient evidence. The Tribunal expressly found he had NOT been dishonest but that his misconduct was serious. He was suspended for 30 months with post-suspension practising conditions and ordered to pay GBP25,000 costs (not to be enforced without leave). The Second Respondent, a non-practising barrister working as a conveyancing fee earner, had allegation 2.1 proved (failure to disclose material facts) but allegation 2.2 (Mr K-O matter) not made out; a Section 43 Order was imposed and she was ordered to pay GBP5,000 costs. Total costs fixed at GBP30,000.

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• Disclose material information to client
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• Handle inadvertently received material
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Orderly wind-down and contingency cover
• Report serious misconduct of others

Aggravating factors:

• Serious misconduct including wholesale failure to supervise
• Cavalier approach to setting up practice
• Adverse consequences for lender clients
• Failure to properly close firm leaving confidential client files exposed
• Failure to co-operate with SRA over an extended period

Mitigating factors:

• No previous disciplinary matters against either Respondent
• No dishonesty found
• First Respondent admitted two allegations
• Errors attributed to human error/inexperience
• Second Respondent claimed she was let down by and relied upon the First Respondent as supervisor