Charles James Ete’s failures are deemed ‘systemic’ as the tribunal rejects his restoration bid.
A solicitor struck off after a £1.2 million fraud scandal has been denied the chance to return to practice, with regulators ruling that he remains unfit to hold the title.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) rejected the application of Charles James Ete, the former sole equity partner of Charles Ete & Co Solicitors and sole principal of Pride Solicitors Ltd, who was struck off in 2021.
Mr Ete was found responsible for a catalogue of breaches in 2018, including failing to supervise staff, ignoring basic anti-money laundering safeguards, and allowing a non-solicitor to practise unlawfully at his firm. These failures, described as “systemic” and “serious,” opened the door to fraudulent transactions worth £1.2 million.
Embed from Getty ImagesThe tribunal heard how Mr Ete had authorised improper payments from client accounts and overlooked glaring warning signs in property transactions. In one case, his failure to carry out identity and money-laundering checks meant purchase money was diverted to third parties in what turned out to be fraudulent sales.
He was also found to have been dishonest with insurers, after confirming he had made “due and careful enquiry” in two conveyancing deals—even though he knew fraud concerns had been raised and reported to police.
Although the tribunal accepted that Mr Ete had been misled by “Person A”—an unqualified individual he wrongly permitted to practise as a solicitor—it ruled that his governance failures extended over time, and that he had not accepted responsibility for matters within his control.
His 2022 appeal against being struck off was dismissed on all grounds.
In January this year, Mr Ete sought restoration to the Roll of Solicitors, having been offered ad-hoc employment with a law firm to represent parents in disputes with local authorities and social services. Giving oral evidence, he said he accepted “unequivocally” the findings of the High Court following his failed appeal, and emphasised that his proposed new role would not involve handling client funds.
But the tribunal stressed that the restoration process was not an appeal against the original decision. Its focus, it said, was whether Mr Ete could be considered a “fit and proper person” to rejoin the profession.
On that test, the tribunal was blunt. It found no convincing evidence of rehabilitation through legal work or training, noted his continuing lack of curiosity in understanding the £1.2 million shortfall in client accounts, and highlighted the absence of repayments to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for costs previously ordered against him.
Character references and the job offer submitted in support of his application were also dismissed as lacking sufficient detail.
In a damning judgment, the tribunal concluded:
“The Tribunal was required to consider the application on its merits and determine whether the public would be protected, the reputation of the profession within England and Wales would be upheld and whether public confidence in the regulatory process would be maintained in the event that the Applicant were granted restoration to the Roll. The Tribunal found that none of those factors were adequately, if at all, met.”
As a result, Mr Ete’s application was refused. He was ordered to pay £3,000 towards the tribunal’s costs, a reduced figure reflecting his financial difficulties.
The ruling ensures that, four years after being struck off, Mr Ete remains excluded from the legal profession. For regulators, it sends a clear message: systemic failures, dishonesty, and lack of accountability will not be excused by later promises of reform.
