A K Kaihiva

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

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard allegations against two solicitors of the firm Kaihiva and Co. The First Respondent, principal solicitor Abuid Karate Kaihiva, was found to have committed numerous breaches including Solicitors Accounts Rules failures, inadequate supervision, failure to guard against mortgage fraud, improper and misleading practising arrangements (an agreement with Michaels and Co apparently to avoid intervention), and failure to pay professional indemnity insurance. The Second Respondent, a salaried partner working only two hours per month, was found responsible as a partner for supervision failures and breaches concerning undertakings and client funds (notably a £605,000 bridging loan misapplied). No express finding of dishonesty was made. The First Respondent was struck off and ordered to pay £54,000 costs; the Second Respondent was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £6,000 costs. The Tribunal proceeded in both respondents' absence after refusing the First Respondent's adjournment application.

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• No improper communication with the court
• No taking unfair advantage
• Costs and fee transparency to client
• Handle inadvertently received material
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Diligence and timeliness
• Supervise staff and delegated work
• Honour professional undertakings
• No improper solicitation or touting

Aggravating factors:

• Clients suffered losses, including a lender's loss of £605,000
• Conduct caused serious damage to reputation of the profession
• Failure to pay professional indemnity premium putting clients at risk
• Agreement with Michaels and Co appeared designed to avoid intervention and allow continued trading in the manner that concerned the SRA
• Unadmitted caseworker allowed to give undertakings that were not honoured
• Transactions bore hallmarks of money laundering with no enquiry into source of funds
• Second Respondent received salary as partner while only working two hours per month (token partner arrangement)

Mitigating factors:

• Second Respondent qualified only in September 2006, relatively inexperienced and naive in joining the partnership
• Many breaches predated Second Respondent joining the firm
• Second Respondent not involved in day-to-day running of the firm
• References provided for Second Respondent
• First Respondent accepted he should have done more to supervise staff