Tribunal finds solicitor incompetent but not unethical after failed checks led to major losses
A solicitor described as “manifestly incompetent” by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has avoided immediate suspension despite facilitating one fraudulent and three potentially fraudulent property transactions worth more than two million pounds.
Eric Kawoya Kabuye, who qualified as a solicitor in 2003, was handed a six-month suspension that has itself been suspended for twelve months from November 2025. The tribunal ruled that while his conduct was serious, it stemmed from incompetence rather than dishonesty.
Mr Kabuye acquired the London firm Queenscourt Law, trading as Hamilton Solicitors, in September 2021 and became its sole director in June 2022. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) intervened and closed the firm in July 2023. Since then, Mr Kabuye has held a practising certificate subject to conditions barring him from ownership, management, compliance roles and involvement with client money. In July 2024, the SRA approved his employment as a consultant at a south London firm.
Embed from Getty Images
The tribunal found that Mr Kabuye failed to prevent the fraudulent sale of a property valued at £825,000 after neglecting to conduct adequate identity checks on the purported sellers. As a result, the firm’s client account was left short by the full amount.
The supposed sellers had provided copies of Irish passports certified by “Mohammed Alyas of MA Solicitors”. The SRA had issued an alert three months earlier, warning the profession about the misuse of Mr Alyas’s name and advising enhanced due diligence. The tribunal found that Mr Kabuye failed to act on that warning.
He was also found to have facilitated three additional property transactions that were potentially fraudulent, again due to inadequate identity verification. These matters exposed the firm to a further potential client account shortfall of up to £1.6 million. None of the shortages had been remedied when the SRA intervened.
In practical terms, the SDT concluded that Mr Kabuye acted as both compliance officer for legal practice and compliance officer for finance and administration, despite lacking formal written approval from the regulator. He also admitted allowing the firm’s client account to be used as a banking facility, transferring sale proceeds to third-party accounts where no underlying transaction existed.
The tribunal identified a “demonstrable lack of control, supervision, governance and oversight” at the firm. Staff were employed without proper recruitment checks, and one individual worked for six months without providing identity documentation. A non-solicitor subject to a section 43 order was permitted to carry out high-risk transactional work without SRA approval.
Although the SDT criticised Mr Kabuye for failing to cooperate fully with the SRA’s investigation, it rejected allegations that he lacked integrity. The tribunal said his conduct reflected ineptitude rather than unethical behaviour.
Mr Kabuye accepted he had been “out of his depth”, saying he was naïve and placed unjustified trust in others. He told the tribunal he had permanently stepped away from conveyancing and did not intend to return to any managerial role.
The SDT ruled that striking him off was unnecessary to protect the public. While the SRA sought nearly fifty-four thousand pounds in costs, the tribunal reduced this to seven thousand five hundred pounds due to Mr Kabuye’s limited means.