Skip to main content
discipline 4 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Maureen Chinedu Agada & Ademola Weston

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number11745/2017
Date01/01/2017
OutcomeReprimand, Strike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Failures, Solicitors' Accounts Rules

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 8,000
Dishonesty foundYes

Two partners of Maus Solicitors faced SRA allegations arising from improper payments and transfers totalling £226,500 from client account relating to client Ms S. The First Respondent, Maureen Chinedu Agada, was found to have made 28 improper payments/transfers without client authority, failed to keep proper records, and failed to comply with money laundering obligations (she was the MLRO). The Tribunal rejected her defence of duress and found she acted dishonestly under the Ivey test. She was struck off the Roll and ordered to pay £8,000 costs (80% of the £10,000 assessed costs). The Second Respondent, Ademola Weston, admitted failing to prevent the improper transfers and record-keeping failures; his conduct was found to be omissions of low culpability with strong mitigation. He was reprimanded with no order for costs due to inability to pay (would otherwise have been £2,000). The allegation that the firm lacked an effective anti-money laundering policy was not proved against either Respondent, as the firm had adopted the Law Society practice note.,

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Dishonesty of the First Respondent
  • Misconduct repeated over a period of months (28 transactions)
  • First Respondent held position of trust and was the MLRO
  • Improper transfer of more than £250,000 from client account
  • Knew or ought to have known conduct was in material breach of obligations

Mitigating factors:

  • First Respondent: no previous disciplinary matters; did not seek to blame Second Respondent
  • Second Respondent: trust placed in First Respondent was breached; open and frank early admissions; full cooperation with SRA; genuine insight; previously unblemished career; positive character references

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/11745/