A conveyancing solicitor who was ‘duped’ into paying £1.2 million to third parties in what turned out to be a fraud has failed to have himself admitted back onto the roll.
Charles James Ete, partner and owner of Charles Ete & Co and the principal of Pride Solicitors - both London firms - had acted for two clients on a £450,000 property sale in 2018 and three further payments of nearly £790,000. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the transactions ‘bore hallmarks of fraud’.
Ete had failed to exercise any or adequate supervision or control over an individual using the name of Person A - a purported solicitor at Pride Solicitors who operated under a fraudulent practising certificate - and failed to take any or adequate steps to verify the identity and regulatory status of the individual, the SDT found.
Six days after Ete was contacted by ST Solicitors - a firm acting for a buyer who lost £350,000 in one of the property transactions - and was notified on 4 July 2018 that the firm had contacted the SRA, their client’s insurer and the police, he signed a professional indemnity insurance renewal form confirming he was ‘not aware of any claims’ or ‘circumstances likely to give rise to claims, in the last 6 years’.
The SDT, at a 2021 tribunal in which Ete was struck off, found the solicitor had concealed the true position from his insurer, adding: ‘He was himself duped by Person A and his purported clients, but [Ete] did not accept responsibility for matters within his control.’
Refusing his application to be added back on to the roll in a decision of 16th July, SDT chair T. Cullen said there were still concerns about Ete in relation to rehabilitation, employment, insight and the unpaid costs due to the SRA.
Cullen wrote: ‘The tribunal found that whilst there was some evidence of insight by the applicant, it was concerned regarding his lack of curiosity in understanding and explaining the shortfall on his firm’s client account and the various outstanding costs owed to the SRA arising from it having been required to discharge its regulatory functions in relation his conduct and the operation of his firm.’
