Skip to main content
discipline 4 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Anthony Alabi

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number11378/2015
Date01/01/2015
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Failures

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 20,000
Dishonesty foundNo

Anthony Alabi, sole principal of Advocates Solicitors, failed to secure PII cover and was required to close his firm by 29 December 2013. He failed to notify the SRA of entry into the Extended Indemnity Period and Cessation Period, breached his Compliance Plan undertakings, continued to hold client money and to practise (including reserved immigration tribunal work) without insurance after the cessation period, and continued as a sole practitioner in breach of conditions imposed on his practising certificate. He failed to respond to the SRA, the FI Officer, s44B Notices and the Legal Ombudsman, and failed to pay compensation recommended by LeO. The Tribunal proceeded in his absence, found 12 of 13 allegations proved (allegation 1.6 not proved; part of 1.3 not proved regarding Outcome 7.4), and found a want of integrity but no dishonesty. He was struck off the Roll and ordered to pay costs of £20,000.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Previous disciplinary finding in 2010 for failing to co-operate with SRA (fined £1,000) - repeated misconduct
  • Deliberate, calculated conduct continuing over a period of months
  • Concealed wrongdoing by not informing clients firm had closed and failing to co-operate with SRA
  • Experienced solicitor (over 10 years admitted, ran own firm for about 8 years)
  • Continued to act for clients when uninsured, putting clients at significant risk
  • Breach of clients' trust by failing to account for client money

Mitigating factors:

  • No dishonesty alleged or found
  • No criminal offence committed
  • Sums of client money involved were small
  • No vulnerable client taken advantage of

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/11378/