The Respondent denied all the allegations. He did not serve an Answer and he played no part in the substantive hearing, leaving during the Applicant’s opening of its case.

From correspondence the Respondent sent the Investigative Officer (IO) in the investigative stage he stated that he had acted for Mrs Sanni in his capacity as a consultant to Kingsville Law. He believed that the possession proceedings had been dealt with by a Consent Order, which he had sent to the parties. Thereafter he suffered with ill health which had prevented him from dealing with the case and had prevented him from registering the case with Mr Gbadamosi of Kingsville Law.

The Tribunal found that this explanation did not bear scrutiny when contrasted with the evidence from Mrs and Mr Sanni, and Mr G Gbadamosi, upon which the Tribunal placed much weight.

Mrs Sanni had believed that the Respondent had been a solicitor at Kingsville Law, and she had been persuaded of this by false representations made to her by the Respondent backed up with letters sent by him to her purportedly bearing the style, address and SRA number of Kingsville Law.

The Tribunal found the factual matrix in respect of each allegation proved in full to the requisite standard, namely the balance of probabilities, along with all the cited Principles, and failure to achieve Outcome 5.1.