Charles Stevens struck off after breaching his undertaking and pressuring peers to stay silent
A solicitor who breached a professional undertaking in a £6.5 million property transaction and then tried to dissuade opposing lawyers from reporting him has been struck off the roll.
Charles Michael Stevens, admitted in 2007, was acting for the buyer in the high-value transaction while a consultant at the Essex law firm Bawtrees. On 1 July 2022, he told the seller’s solicitor, Lynne Goldsby of The Wilkes Partnership, that he had received a 10% deposit but could not transfer it until the following Monday due to “outside appointments.”
Goldsby agreed to amend the undertaking, but it was a lie. Stevens hadn’t received the funds. He later claimed he believed the money was “in the system” and was merely being honest about his expectations. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) disagreed, branding it recklessness of a high order.
By 4 July, the date on which Stevens was bound to transfer the deposit and the signed contract, he still hadn’t fulfilled the undertaking. His explanation: the client hadn’t provided the funds. The SDT found that this behaviour lacked integrity.
What followed shocked the tribunal. When efforts to resolve the breach escalated in September 2022, another partner at Wilkes, Kevin Lynch, received an email from Stevens containing a disturbing proposal: the client would agree to settle only if the opposing solicitors agreed not to report Stevens or Bawtrees to the SRA.
Embed from Getty Images“I think we are agreed,” he wrote, adding that the matter should be dropped.
Stevens argued he was simply conveying his client’s settlement terms and was not trying to prevent regulatory action. But the SDT saw it differently, ruling that Stevens was covering his tracks and again demonstrating a serious lack of integrity.
Unbeknownst to him, Lynch had already reported him to the regulator.
The tribunal said the conduct demonstrated a troubling mindset, adding that Stevens’ motivation likely stemmed from wanting to push the deal over the line due to the financial incentives involved. “The respondent may have been swayed by the potential rewards for him and the firm,” the panel stated.
Despite Stevens’ previous clean record, remorse, and several positive character references, the SDT found that these could not outweigh the gravity of the misconduct. Even a suspension would have been too lenient, it said.
He was struck off the roll, effectively ending his legal career.
Although Stevens had agreed to pay the SRA’s £25,000 in costs, the SDT declined to make a formal costs order, noting his “extremely limited” financial means and the improbability that the amount would ever be paid.
The SDT’s message was clear: trying to cover up professional failings is more damning than the failings themselves. The ruling underscores the SRA’s growing emphasis on upholding integrity, especially in high-value, high-risk transactions.
