The SDT ordered the respondent to pay a fine of £1,000, and further ordered that he should be subject to the following condition: that he might not practise as a sole practitioner or sole manager or sole owner of an authorised or recognised body, with liberty to either party to apply to vary that condition.

Leslie Olayinka Olojugba Charles

  • Application 11544-2016
  • Admitted 2004
  • Hearings 21, 22 February 2017
  • Reasons 24 March 2017

Between 17 March 2014 and 30 June 2014, and 17 September 2015 and 11 October 2015, the respondent had breached rule 20.1(a) of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 and principles 2, 6, and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011.

On 8 November 2013, he had breached rule 17.1(b) of the rules and principle 6.

Between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2015, he had breached rules 29.1, 29.2 and 29.9 of the rules.

By virtue of the above, he had failed to run his business effectively and in accordance with sound financial principles, in breach of principle 8.

The respondent’s misconduct was moderately serious. Costs had been assessed and it was appropriate to take that into account in determining the amount of a fine; £3,000 would have been proportionate if the costs had not been relatively substantial. The respondent had provided a personal financial statement and in all the circumstances the fine should be reduced to £1,000.

Having regard to the difficulties which the respondent had got into as a sole practitioner, it was appropriate for a condition to be imposed on his future practice.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £16,000.