Charles Stevens lied about a £650k deposit and tried to silence a report to the SRA
A former Essex solicitor has been struck off for a series of grave misconduct breaches linked to a £6 million property deal—actions which a disciplinary tribunal said undermined the very foundations of conveyancing.
Charles Michael Stevens, who acted for the purchaser while working at Bawtrees LLP in Witham, falsely claimed he had received a £650,000 deposit, recklessly misled the opposing solicitor, failed to honour an undertaking, and then attempted to prevent the matter being reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
Stevens admitted to sending a text message and later confirming in a phone call that the deposit funds were “in the system”, despite not being in receipt of them. He later claimed he believed his client was in the process of transferring the money, but the cash never arrived, and the buyer’s contract was not sent as agreed.
When the seller’s firm, TWP Solicitors, pursued the issue, Stevens emailed an extraordinary demand, stating:
“My client agrees to the below on the basis that… your firm or your clients [do not] proceed with any action against me or Bawtrees, including reporting either to the Law Society or the SRA.”
Embed from Getty ImagesThe Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found these actions were not isolated, but connected, and demonstrated a “pattern of recklessness” and a breach of core duties during a high-value deal.
While the exact motivation behind Stevens’ behaviour was unclear, the tribunal found it “reasonable to infer” that the desire to close the deal “by whatever means” played a significant role. But they stressed that misrepresentation—regardless of the transaction size—“would be extreme recklessness”.
The tribunal delivered a scathing assessment of his conduct, stating:
“Undertakings within the context of conveyancing are the bedrock and foundation of the whole system… Breaches on a micro scale cause stress and delays. On a macro scale, they strike at the heart of the conveyancing process and public trust.”
Despite mitigating factors—including Stevens’ previously unblemished record, expressed remorse, cooperation, and personal difficulties—the tribunal concluded that these could not offset the inherent seriousness of the breaches.
In the end, the SDT ruled that striking Stevens off the Roll was the only suitable course of action to protect the public and uphold the integrity of the profession.