‘Troubling mind set’
A solicitor has been struck off after misleading fellow lawyers over a £650,000 deposit in a multimillion-pound property deal — and then attempting to stop them reporting him to regulators.
Charles Stevens, a consultant at Essex firm Bawtrees LLP, was acting for the buyer in a £6.5 million transaction when he claimed that the deposit funds were “in the system” and due to be transferred. In fact, no money had been received at all.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found Stevens’ assurances were not just misleading but showed “recklessness of a high order” and a serious lack of integrity.
When the truth emerged and tensions rose between the parties, Stevens made a startling attempt to keep the issue quiet. In an email to the seller’s solicitors, he wrote:
“My client agrees to the below on the basis that, as we mentioned before, this matter is then dropped and neither your firm or your clients proceed with any action against me or Bawtrees including reporting either to the Law Society or the SRA. If you can confirm this then I think we are agreed.”
The SDT said this message was a clear attempt to dissuade a fellow solicitor from fulfilling their regulatory obligations and amounted to an effort to “create a situation where his tracks were covered”.
Despite Stevens’ claims that he was merely relaying a client’s settlement offer, the tribunal concluded his conduct revealed a “troubling mind set” and a pattern of behaviour that went well beyond a single lapse in judgment.
“The misconduct had not been an isolated incident and brief error of judgment,” the SDT ruled, “but had involved serious lack of integrity at a very high level on two separate occasions … demonstrating a pattern of behaviour and a troubling mind set on the respondent’s part.”
The tribunal rejected arguments for leniency — including Stevens’ previously clean record, character references and expressions of remorse — and said the integrity of the legal profession demanded he be struck off.
Though Stevens had initially agreed to contribute £25,000 to the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s costs, no order was made due to his “extremely limited” financial means and the likelihood the money would never be paid.