The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has refused to restore a solicitor to the roll after he was struck off in 2021 for a series of regulatory and supervision breaches that resulted in a £1.2 million fraud.
Charles James Ete, sole equity partner and owner of Charles Ete & Co Solicitors and sole principal and owner of Pride Solicitors Ltd, was found to have caused, allowed or acted in a number of breaches in 2018. Nine allegations substantiated by the Tribunal included failing to verify the identity and regulatory status of an individual he had allowed to practice as a solicitor (Person A), improper payments from a client account, and transactions that bore hallmarks of fraud.
He was also found to have been dishonest, after misleading insurers in relation to two conveyancing transactions in which failure to carry out identity and money laundering checks to verify the seller resulted in purchase money being improperly paid out to third parties.
Despite being informed by the buyers’ solicitor that the transaction in which his firm was acting may be fraudulent and had been reported to the police, he ‘knowingly misled his insurers’ by confirming he had ‘made due and careful enquiry’ and was ‘not aware of any claims’ or ‘circumstances likely to give rise to claims’.
Although the Tribunal acknowledged that Mr Ete had been duped by Person A, it found that his governance failures had been systemic and extended over time and he had not accepted responsibility for matters within his control.
An appeal against the decision was rejected on all grounds in 2022. In January this year, Mr Ete applied for restoration to the Roll of Solicitors after receiving an offer of employment with a firm of solicitors in which he would act on an ad-hoc basis representing parents in proceedings against local authorities and social services.
In his oral evidence, Mr Ete said he accepted ‘unequivocally’ the findings of the High Court following the appeal and would have no financial responsibilities in the role he had been offered. Noting that the application for restoration was not an appeal against the original decision, the Tribunal said its purpose was to establish whether Mr Ete was ‘a fit and proper person’ to be restored to the Roll of Solicitors.
In rejecting the bid, the Tribunal found there was no satisfactory evidence of rehabilitation through legal employment or training, a concerning lack of curiosity in understanding and explaining the £1.2 million shortfall on his firm’s client account, and there had been no repayments to the Solicitors Regulation Authority in respect of regulatory costs ordered by the Tribunal.
Character references and the job offer provided by Mr Ete were also found to be lacking detail.
The judgment noted:
“The Tribunal was required to consider the application on its merits and determine whether the public would be protected, the reputation of the profession within England and Wales would be upheld and whether public confidence in the regulatory process would be maintained in the event that the Applicant were granted restoration to the Roll. The Tribunal found that none of those factors were adequately, if at all, met on the written application, oral evidence and submissions received.”
Mr Ete was also ordered to pay the costs of the application, reduced to £3,000 to take into account his financial circumstances.
