Decisions and interventions

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for one year from 21 January 2026. 

While in practice as the senior partner at Hansells Solicitors, the respondent had behaved in a manner which was inappropriate and unwanted towards persons A, B, C and D, who were all women who worked at the firm. The misconduct had taken place on 23 December 2022 at the firm, following the firm’s Christmas lunch, and when Christmas celebrations had subsequently taken place back at the office.

By reason of his misconduct, the respondent had breached principles 2, 5 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2019 and rule 1.5 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors 2019. 

The respondent’s motivation for his misconduct was sexual, which was an aggravating feature. His behaviour had arisen from actions which were not premeditated. He nevertheless had had direct control and responsibility for the circumstances giving rise to his misconduct. 

The respondent had caused harm to persons A, B, C and D during his misconduct. They had expressed their upset following his behaviour towards them. He had also harmed the reputation of the firm and of the profession.

His misconduct was deliberate but not calculated, as the events had taken place over a brief period of time. He had failed to take full responsibility for his behaviour on 23 December 2022, as he had argued unsuccessfully that it was involuntary and that he had not been advised that his behaviour might be unusually affected by alcohol intoxication. 

The respondent had voluntarily notified the regulator of the facts and circumstances giving rise to his misconduct. The evidence showed that the misconduct, although serious, was of brief duration in a previously unblemished career. The respondent had shown insight into the harm that he had caused. He was remorseful and had apologised for his misconduct at the earliest opportunity.

Given the serious nature of the allegations, a suspension from practice for one year to take effect immediately was fair and proportionate. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £30,000.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll.

While in practice as a solicitor at Fletcher Day Limited, between January 2022 and July 2022, the respondent had misappropriated a minimum of £997,417.58 of client money, contributing to an overall client account shortage of £2,096,757.59 as at 30 September 2022. He had thereby breached rules 5.1, 5.2 and 6.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2019, paragraph 4.2 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019 and principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019. 

The respondent had provided the SRA with information which he knew or ought to have known to be false and/or misleading in relation to Metro Bank account number -5577 in the following ways: on or about 9 December 2020, he had provided the SRA with a falsified copy of the statement for Metro Bank account number -5577 for November 2020; and on or about 6 January 2021, he had provided the SRA with a falsified letter from Metro Bank dated 21 December 2020. He had thereby breached principles 2, 4 and 5 and had failed to comply with paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 of the code.

On or about 6 October 2022, the respondent had provided copies of statements for Metro Bank account number -5577 for the period April 2022 to September 2022 to staff at the firm to mislead them and which he knew or ought to have known were false, thereby breaching paragraph 1.4 of the code and principles 2, 4 and 5.

The SDT found that the respondent’s conduct was motivated by personal financial gain and was aggravated by his proven dishonesty. That his conduct was deliberate, calculated and repeated was plain. The respondent had caused significant harm to the reputation of the profession and to his client, whose monies he had misappropriated. 

In view of the serious nature of the misconduct, which had involved repeated acts of dishonesty, the only appropriate and proportionate sanction, in order to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the integrity of the profession and the provision of legal services, was to order that the respondent be struck off the roll. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £65,000. 

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be suspended from practice for two years from 12 February 2026. 

While in practice as a solicitor at City Law Solicitors Cardiff Ltd, in the role of director and owner of the firm, the respondent had on 16 May 2019 during a meeting with client A, Mr B and Mr C, made statements about the ownership and/or transfer of a property in Cardiff which he knew or ought to have known were untrue at the time that he made them. He had thereby breached principles 2, 3 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 and failed to achieve outcome 11.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors RELs and RFLS 2011. He had acted dishonestly.

On 16 May 2019, the respondent had suggested to those at the meeting that an adjournment could be obtained by lying to the court. He had thereby breached principles 1, 2, 4 and 6 and had failed to achieve outcome 1.2 of the  code. He had acted dishonestly. 

On 29 October 2019, the respondent had sent a letter purporting to be a chartered surveyor’s report prepared on his instructions from a company which no longer existed, in circumstances where he knew or ought to have known that he had not instructed that company, thereby breaching principles 2 and 6 and failing to achieve outcome 11.1 of the code. 

On 9 June 2020, the respondent had given an undertaking to another firm of solicitors. From 2 September 2020 to date, he had failed to fulfil the  undertaking. He had thereby breached principles 2 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and had failed to act in accordance with paragraph 1.3 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019. 

The respondent’s motivation was to protect client A from the pressure he faced from his family and others. There was no evidence that he had deliberately misled the regulator. His misconduct had had a limited impact upon those in the meeting, but it had caused significant harm to the reputation of the legal profession.

It was aggravated by his proven dishonesty. Although the misconduct was deliberate, the respondent had been genuinely concerned about the risk to client A. No loss had resulted from the respondent’s misconduct. 

Although the misconduct was serious and deliberate, the case did, in all the circumstances, fall within the very narrow residual category where a finding of dishonesty would ordinarily result in striking-off, save in exceptional circumstances. Striking-off was disproportionate and suspension was a more appropriate sanction. 

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £37,568.

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll.

On or about 24 August 2023, the respondent had provided misleading information to the Family Court at Leicester County Court, namely as to his location during the hearing, when questioned by the court as to where he was located at the time of the hearing. He had thereby breached principles 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and paragraphs 1.4 and 2.6 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs. 

On or about 24 August 2023, the respondent had failed to attend a hearing in person at the court as required by an order of the court dated 27 July 2023, and had failed to arrange for a suitable representative to attend to cover for him at the hearing. He had thereby breached principles 1 and 2, and paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6 of the Code for Solicitors. 

The respondent had misled a judge, which was misconduct of the highest order. He had not shown any insight into the nature or effect of his misconduct. The main aggravating feature of his conduct was the finding of dishonesty.

The respondent had caused harm by wasting the court’s time. He had participated in a hearing which had lasted almost 45 minutes, during which the question of his whereabouts was one to which the recorder had returned on several occasions, meaning that it was not a ‘moment of madness’ case. His location was relevant, as the court was trying to establish a stable connection for CVP via a landline, which was necessary because the respondent had appeared remotely, as opposed to in-person, as directed.

The SDT therefore determined that the present case was not one which fell into the small residual category of cases which could be regarded as exceptional. The appropriate sanction was to strike the respondent’s name from the roll.  

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £7,500.

On 4 March 2026, the adjudication panel resolved to intervene into the above-named recognised body and into the former practice of Jennifer Ariowa Ukponmwan Obaseki at the firm. The firm, formerly based at 27 Bentley Road, London N1 4BY, closed on 17 February 2026.

The ground for intervention into Obaseki’s practice was:

• Obaseki had failed to comply with the rules – paragraph 1(1)(c) of schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

The ground for intervention into Obaseki & Co was: 

• Obaseki, as a manager of the firm, and the firm itself had failed to comply with rules applicable to them both by virtue of section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended) – paragraph 32(1)(a) of schedule 2 to that act.

Chris Evans of Lester Aldridge LLP, Russell House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth BH8 8EX (tel: 01202 786341, email: interventions@la-law.com), has been appointed to act as the Law Society’s agent. The first date of attendance was 11 March 2026. 

Obaseki’s current practising certificate has been suspended as a result of the intervention.