A solicitor has been given a 12-month suspension from practice, suspended for two years, and ordered to pay £47,000 after failing to redeem nearly £200,000 of charges on a probate property sale.
The Solicitor’s Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) said the case was a warning that “even experienced professionals could make serious errors in judgment under extreme stress, that personal issues could impair decision-making and risk perception and that well intentioned actions could still breach professional standards”.
But, despite the SDT ruling that Maame Adjoa Doku Djan-Krofa’s conduct was “professionally inadequate”, it allowed her to continue practising because there it said there was no evidence of dishonesty.
It insisted, however, that Ms Djan-Krofa, who said she had made errors because she had been “overwhelmed”, should employ a finance director.
The ruling said Ms Djan-Krofa’s “health concerns, her emotional vulnerability and impaired judgment represented an explanation but not an excuse for the serious misconduct found”, and was not convinced that she “clearly understood the seriousness of her conduct and the potential for harm.”
In 2022, Ms Djan-Krofa, owner of Chislehurst law firm Pishon Gold, was acting for a sale of property from probate on which there were 13 charges and mortgages requiring redemption. The case concerned three of these charges, for £156,823, £22,718 and £12,000, and which she admitted she had failed to redeem.
She also admitted failing to cooperate with the investigation by not responding to requests for information and documents.
The SDT ruling further found it part-proven that she knew she hadn’t made payments for which she said was chasing confirmation.
Ms Djan-Krofa told the tribunal that “she accepted the mistakes that she made and the delays that occurred when dealing with this matter” and “that she should have handled parts of the matter differently”, but “client monies were never at risk. Where information was incomplete this was because of honest belief and the acute pressures of the personal and professional circumstances… There was never a deliberate attempt to mislead”.
The tribunal found that evidence revealed “a practitioner who was professionally vulnerable as a result of the bereavement of a close colleague and the depletion of staff in a small firm leading to increased pressure on her as the sole director, partner, and owner”.
But crucially, it ruled, “the public turns to a solicitor precisely because they can expedite the sale of a property with expert knowledge of procedure and the legal requirements to deal with the discharge of charges on completion.”
It said that solicitors as legal professionals should ensure that they retained professional objectivity and seek help where there was a danger that such objectivity was challenged or capable of being compromised.
Ms Djan-Krofa sought anonymity during the case due to what she called its severe impact on her health, and a diagnosis of acute stress disorder, but the tribunal, while accepting this, ruled that this did not justify departing from “the principle of open justice”.
The tribunal imposed a fine of £20,000 and Ms Djan-Krofa was ordered to pay costs of £27,000.
