By Tony O’Reilly–
A solicitor who exploited her professional reputation to persuade a group of nurses to invest £31,000 in a property that was never transferred to them has been struck off the roll after a disciplinary tribunal found that she repeatedly misled the investors, the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the court.
Julie Condliffe, 48, who was admitted as a solicitor in 2012, was found to have abused the trust placed in her as a qualified legal professional when she became involved with three potential investors from the Zimbabwean community.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal concluded that Condliffe used her professional status and influence to promote confidence in an investment arrangement that ultimately failed to deliver the property the investors believed they were purchasing.
The tribunal heard that the women had entered into arrangements with Condliffe in 2018 after being introduced to her through the Zimbabwean community, where she was regarded as a well-known and influential figure.
The investors paid a combined £31,000 towards what they believed was the purchase of a residential property in the north-east of England. But no property was ever transferred to them.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
At the time, Condliffe was the sole director of PropertyPro World Limited, known as PPW, which owned the property in question. One of the investors later told the tribunal that she believed Condliffe was acting on her behalf as a solicitor after having helped broker the investment.
The tribunal heard that Condliffe emailed the investors saying that she would handle the matter herself as a specialist solicitor. She subsequently sent messages that appeared to indicate that the property transfer was progressing, including one message telling an investor: “The property will be yours from tomorrow.”
However, the anticipated transfer never took place. As the relationship between Condliffe and the investors deteriorated, the nature of the arrangement became the subject of a dispute.
Condliffe subsequently characterised the deal as a residential purchase lease option, rather than the straightforward residential property purchase the investors believed they had entered into.
The tribunal found that she repeated this characterisation when responding to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and later when the investors brought civil proceedings against her.
The investors eventually launched a claim in the county court in 2021. The dispute ended in a settlement worth £19,000, leaving the women substantially out of pocket compared with the £31,000 they had originally paid.
Condliffe denied deliberately misleading the investors. Her defence was that she genuinely believed the arrangement constituted a lease-option purchase and that any discrepancy arose from an honest misunderstanding rather than dishonesty.
However, the tribunal rejected the credibility of key aspects of her account. Central to the proceedings was a purported first-option agreement said to have been sent to one of the investors in 2018 and which referred to a purchase lease.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority, (SRA)which prosecuted the disciplinary case, pointed to a significant problem with the document. The registered office of PPW stated on the agreement was not occupied by the company until 2020, despite the document purportedly dating from 2018.
The tribunal said the discrepancy “gravely damaged Ms Condliffe’s credibility”.
In its judgement, the tribunal delivered a particularly severe assessment of the way Condliffe had used her professional position. It concluded that she had “clearly exploited her professional status to promote the trust and credibility arising from being a qualified solicitor”.
The tribunal said the consequences extended beyond the immediate financial dispute and had damaged members of a wider community in which Condliffe had built a position of influence.
“Ms Condliffe’s misconduct had a significant impact on the wider community and, in particular, on the Zimbabwean women she claimed to be empowering,” the tribunal said.
It added that her conduct had caused “significant damage to the reputation of the legal profession” and that the harm was “clearly foreseeable”.
Condliffe had developed a public profile beyond her legal practice. She had spoken at conferences and appeared on podcasts, while also becoming an author of four published books. Her public profile and connections within the Zimbabwean community contributed to the trust she was able to establish with the women who invested through her.
That background became significant in the tribunal’s assessment of the misconduct because the investors were not simply dealing with an unknown property intermediary. They were dealing with someone whose professional title and reputation carried an additional degree of authority and credibility.
The case therefore raises wider questions about the responsibilities of solicitors when operating in commercial and investment environments outside conventional legal representation.
A solicitor’s professional status can provide reassurance to members of the public who may have limited experience of complex property transactions, making the misuse of that status particularly serious where investors are vulnerable or relying heavily on professional guidance.
Condliffe’s professional career has since suffered further consequences. She later owned the London firm Creative Legal Solutions, which was shut down by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in 2025.
The disciplinary tribunal has now imposed the ultimate professional sanction, striking Condliffe off the roll of solicitors and preventing her from continuing to practise as a solicitor.
She was also ordered to pay £48,000 in costs.
The tribunal’s decision makes clear that its concerns went beyond a failed investment or an ordinary commercial disagreement. Its findings focused on the alleged misuse of professional authority, the representations made to the investors and subsequent explanations provided to the regulator and the court.
The case is particularly striking because the investors had approached Condliffe through a community in which she was already well known. Their decision to invest was therefore made against a backdrop of trust and professional confidence, rather than simply an arms-length commercial transaction.
The tribunal’s conclusion that Condliffe exploited that trust represents a serious finding about the way a solicitor’s professional standing can influence members of the public.
For the investors, the £19,000 settlement reached after their county court claim provided some financial recovery, but it did not restore the £31,000 they had originally invested. The disciplinary proceedings have now resulted in a further and more severe consequence for Condliffe, ending her career as a solicitor.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar