Owner with 'no grasp' of running law firm suspended

A solicitor who admitted he ‘didn’t really have a grasp’ of managing a law firm has been suspended for 18 months.

Douglas Wamburu, sole principal of Kent firm Jesse Douglas & Aaskells, admitted he failed to notify the Solicitors Regulation Authority when the company was subject to a winding up petition from HM Revenue & Customs – nor even when a resolution was passed to appoint liquidators.

Wamburu had qualified in 2009 and ran his own firm from 2013 until it closed in 2019. He had been granted approval as a compliance officer by the SRA on the basis of his three-year experience of active practice and pledge to oversee day-to-day management of the accounts.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard that the SRA had already investigated the firm following a report from the Legal Aid Agency that it had suspended its contract. This fact had not been reported by Wamburu to the SRA. He assured the regulator that he had scaled down the firm and carried on working as a mental health solicitor on a consultancy basis, and the SRA closed its investigation.

However in February 2019 the Insolvency Service wrote to the SRA reporting that the firm had been placed into liquidation. Despite this, investigators found that Wamburu had continued to practise as the firm.

In an interview with the SRA, Wamburu said he ‘wasn’t aware’ it was his responsibility to maintain books of accounts. With regards to the LAA contract, he stated he ‘didn’t have the capacity or the knowledge to really understand how to even do these things’. He had not realised he needed to report to the SRA, despite being required by the LAA to repay £165,000 due to the firm exceeding the number of cases it had permission to undertake.

Wamburu told the interview: ‘At that time, I didn’t really even think about COLP and COFA. I knew those titles are there, but to really sit down and think you know, I’m COLP, I need to report all this. It was like the last thing on my mind.’

Wamburu made an agreed outcome with the SRA which was rubber-stamped by the tribunal. The SDT said the proposed 18-month suspension adequately reflected the seriousness of the misconduct. He was made subject to indefinite conditions once his suspension ends preventing him from managing a firm or holding or receiving client money. He must also pay £18,000 costs.