Met Police: Did not tell solicitor he could not discuss matter with client
A veteran solicitor has been cleared of tipping off a client about a police investigation but fined for multiple failures in running his practice, which were put down to “laziness”.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) said Musa Audu “had a disregard for due process and sought out short cuts” – indeed, his own advocate described Mr Audu’s administrative skills as “hopeless”.
But the tribunal also acknowledged that the “thorough and outstanding character references from persons of professional standing” who had worked with the 74-year-old supported Mr Audu’s credibility and “cast considerable doubt on his propensity to dishonesty”.
Mr Audu, who qualified in 1997 at the age of 45, had been a “professional, serious, and credible witness”, it added.
He owned and ran North London firm Audu & Co, which closed in May 2024, shortly after the Solicitors Regulation Authority had decided to intervene in it. He specialised in crime and family work but also handled a little bit of conveyancing.
Mr Audu had acted for ‘Client A’ in 2016 in buying a property in Bradford. In 2022, the Metropolitan Police told him that Client A – who was already in jail – was under investigation for drugs and money laundering offences, and it was making an ex parte application for production of the conveyancing file under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
He was told he must not disclose information liable to prejudice the investigation. Mr Audu responded the same day to say he would await the court order and take instructions from his client.
Mr Audu held a video conference with Client A, explaining to the SDT that he wanted to advise that it was in his best interests to cooperate with the police.
The production order was later made and Mr Audu confirmed to his client that the file had been handed over.
The SDT noted that the solicitor was not charged with tipping off and concluded that he did not disclose information against police instructions; rather, he was complying with his duty of care to his client.
“He had been warned not to tell Client A that the police intended to make an ‘ex-parte application’ and he did not do so. The police did not tell the respondent not to tell Client A that they had asked for the file.”
However, Mr Audu admitted making five transfers from client to office account totalling £10,100 made when the firm was close to its £10,000 overdraft limit and needed money to pay staff and bills.
Mr Audu argued that the money represented undrawn fees which, once properly billed, would have belonged to the firm. He admitted not sending out bills when he made each transfer, however.
“The tribunal observed the serious failings which were manifest in the respondent’s approach to bookkeeping. He had disregarded professional rules, of which he was aware, thereby endangering trust and confidence in the profession.
“He had made deliberate, sloppy choices and admitted that he had done so in the interests of convenience and an easy life. This was a clear breach of integrity.”
But it rejected an allegation that Mr Audu’s actions had been dishonest – he “genuinely” believed that the money belonged to him. “The tribunal accepted this on the basis that the money had been paid and was held pursuant to fixed fee agreements, later reflected in completion statements, in accordance with usual conveyancing protocol.”
Mr Audu also admitted to allowing the firm’s client account to be used as a banking facility for two clients. He told the SDT this was because the clients did not have UK bank accounts and wanted to avoid loss of value on transfers to and from Nigeria.
He also admitted to other accounts rules failures and not having in place a compliant firm-wide risk assessment and policies, controls and procedures for the purposes of the Money Laundering Regulations, as well not checking source of funds properly or undertaking risk assessments on two transactions.
The SDT said that, in assessing culpability, it “considered that the respondent’s motivation for his misconduct was laziness. He had a disregard for due process and sought out short cuts”.
There was no actual loss to clients but the administrative systems Mr Audu operated meant there was a risk of harm. He “knew or ought to have known that he was not acting in accordance with the rules of the profession, and his misconduct was deliberate and sustained for a period of over several years”.
The SDT fined Mr Audu £10,500 and imposed conditions on his practising certificate preventing him from running or owning a law firm, holding client money or being a signatory on any client or office account, and being a compliance officer.
He was also ordered to pay costs of £46,600, reduced from £64,200.
Leave a Comment