SDT finds solicitor lacked insight into £1.2m fraud and misled insurer before being struck off.
A conveyancing solicitor who authorised £1.2 million in fraudulent payments has failed in his attempt to rejoin the legal profession after being struck off in 2021.
Charles James Ete, once a partner and principal at two London firms—Charles Ete & Co and Pride Solicitors—was found to have demonstrated insufficient insight into the failures that led to the fraud and remained burdened by unpaid regulatory costs, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT ruled).
The case stemmed from a series of transactions in 2018, in which Ete acted on a £450,000 property sale for two clients and authorised nearly £790,000 in additional payments. The SDT later concluded that the transactions bore clear hallmarks of fraud.
Embed from Getty ImagesCentral to the case was Ete’s failure to adequately supervise or verify an individual known only as “Person A”, who claimed to be a solicitor at Pride Solicitors and operated under a falsified practising certificate. Ete was found to have taken minimal or no steps to confirm the individual’s identity or regulatory status.
Despite being “duped” by Person A, Ete was still held responsible for critical lapses under his control. The tribunal noted that the fraud had occurred under his watch, and he failed to act with the scrutiny expected of a solicitor.
Worse still, six days after he was informed that the matter had been reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), the client’s insurer, and the police, Ete submitted a professional indemnity insurance renewal form stating that he was unaware of any claims or circumstances that might give rise to claims in the preceding six years.
That omission was considered an attempt to conceal the issue from his insurer.
At the 2021 tribunal, Ete was struck off, with the panel concluding: “He was himself duped by Person A and his purported clients, but [Ete] did not accept responsibility for matters within his control.”
Ete later sought reinstatement to the roll of solicitors. However, in a decision dated 16 July 2025, tribunal chair T. Cullen ruled against his application.
Cullen noted concerns over Ete’s rehabilitation, ongoing insight into the gravity of the misconduct, and failure to satisfy the costs owed to the SRA for its regulatory actions.
The SDT added that while Ete had shown some evidence of reflection, it was not enough. In particular, he had failed to adequately question or explain the shortfall in his firm’s client account, which had been directly linked to the fraudulent activity.
Cullen wrote: “The tribunal found that whilst there was some evidence of insight by the applicant, it was concerned regarding his lack of curiosity in understanding and explaining the shortfall on his firm’s client account and the various outstanding costs owed to the SRA arising from it having been required to discharge its regulatory functions in relation [to] his conduct and the operation of his firm.”
The SDT’s refusal underscores the profession’s continued focus on integrity, especially when it comes to safeguarding client funds and maintaining trust in the system.
Ete’s name will remain off the roll, and he remains liable for costs resulting from the SRA’s intervention into his practice.
