John U Eni-Uwubame

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

Two partners of Berkeleys Solicitors faced allegations arising from conveyancing transactions where mortgage lenders were not informed of material facts (price incentives, source of completion funds), involvement in a Swiss investment scheme bearing hallmarks of bank instrument fraud, and misdescribing fees (telegraphic transfer charges and PII contributions) as disbursements to make a secret profit. The Tribunal found all allegations against the First Respondent (Eni-Uwubame) substantiated and expressly found him dishonest under the Twinsectra test, particularly regarding the Swiss investment scheme; he was struck off. The Second Respondent was found not involved in conveyancing or the investment scheme, but as a partner was liable for the secret profit misdescription (allegations 1,2,3,7 substantiated); he was fined £2,000. Total costs of £29,000 ordered on a several basis (£25,000 First Respondent, £4,000 Second Respondent).

Duties found breached:

• Proper basis for allegations
• Honesty
• Act in the client's best interests
• Disclose material information to client
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Good faith and courtesy to colleagues

Aggravating factors:

• Involvement in a scheme bearing hallmarks of bank instrument fraud despite awareness of Law Society warning card
• Failure to inform mortgage lenders of material facts including price variations and source of funds
• Use of other clients' funds and drawing on uncleared cheques
• First Respondent deliberately absented himself from the hearing
• Conduct led to three hearings

Mitigating factors:

• Second Respondent had no knowledge of or involvement in conveyancing or Swiss investment matters
• Second Respondent relied on supervising partner responsible for finances
• Second Respondent benefited only to a modest degree from the secret profit
• Second Respondent had limited means and bore sole responsibility for firm's debts
• Firm amended client care letters and offered refunds when concerns were raised