Charles Stevens lied about client funds, then begged rivals not to report him to regulators
A solicitor who lied about receiving a six-figure deposit and then tried to silence his counterpart from reporting him to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has been struck off the roll, a tribunal has ruled.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) described Charles Michael Stevens’ actions as showing a “troubling mindset” and “a serious lack of integrity at a very high level”.
Mr Stevens, admitted in 2007, was acting as a consultant for Essex-based law firm Bawtrees in a £6.5 million property purchase when he breached a professional undertaking in July 2022.
On 1 July 2022, Stevens told opposing solicitor Lynne Goldsby of The Wilkes Partnership that he had received the 10% deposit but could not transfer it that day due to “outside appointments”. He proposed delaying the transfer until the following Monday. Goldsby agreed.
But Stevens had lied—the funds never arrived. He later told the SDT he “honestly believed” the money was in the process of being transferred by his client, admitting his belief was reckless.
When he failed to meet the new deadline of 4 July 2022, he claimed again that the delay was due to his client. The tribunal found this excuse demonstrated a lack of integrity and that Stevens had knowingly misrepresented facts.
Embed from Getty ImagesThings worsened when Kevin Lynch, a partner at Wilkes, got involved. During settlement discussions in September 2022, Stevens emailed Lynch with a condition: his client would only agree to a settlement if “this matter is then dropped” and no report was made to the Law Society or the SRA.
Stevens argued this was merely a communication of his client’s terms, not an attempt to gag the opposing solicitor. But the SDT was not persuaded, calling the email a clear attempt to cover his tracks and to discourage a regulatory complaint.
Unbeknownst to Stevens, Lynch had already reported him to the SRA.
The tribunal said Stevens’ actions “went beyond wishful thinking and represented recklessness of a high order”. It inferred that Stevens may have been driven by the financial incentives tied to closing such a high-value transaction.
In scathing language, the SDT said: “Effectively hiding behind his client and attempting to persuade a fellow solicitor not to fulfil their own regulatory reporting responsibilities was particularly egregious.”
Despite character references, a previously clean record, and apparent remorse, the SDT rejected any sanction short of striking off. A suspension was deemed insufficient in light of the gravity and patterned nature of the misconduct.
The tribunal concluded that to protect the public, uphold professional standards, and maintain public trust, “no lesser sanction than that the respondent be removed from the roll” would suffice.
Although Stevens agreed to pay £25,000 in SRA costs, the SDT made no costs order, citing his “extremely limited” financial means and the likelihood that, after being struck off, he would never be able to repay the sum.
