Too soon”: Disgraced solicitor denied roll return with £64k still unpaid

Tribunal rejects ex-solicitor’s comeback bid, citing unpaid costs and lack of exceptional grounds

A solicitor struck off for serious professional failings has been told it is far too soon for him to return to the roll, after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) ruled his case fell well short of the “exceptional circumstances” required.

Charles James Ete, admitted in 1997, lost his practising rights in June 2021 when the SDT found his “wholly inadequate” compliance systems allowed him to be deceived by two bogus clients and a bogus solicitor, leading to over £1.2 million in property sale proceeds being sent to unrelated third parties.

The tribunal also found he acted dishonestly by telling his indemnity insurer that he was unaware of any circumstances likely to give rise to claims, despite having been informed six days earlier that one of the transactions could be fraudulent and had already been reported to the SRA, the buyer’s solicitors’ insurer and the police.

Ete, who had been the sole equity partner and owner of two East London law firms — Charles Ete & Co in Barking and Pride Solicitors in Ilford — was ordered to pay £64,260 in costs. His High Court appeal failed in 2022, with Mr Justice Linden stating there was “no basis” to overturn the findings.

In his application for restoration, Ete’s counsel argued the dishonesty finding related to a “single act” that caused no loss to the insurer. He claimed his client fully accepted the ruling, regretted his actions, and would not return to work involving client money. Instead, Ete proposed practising legally aided family law.

Ete told the tribunal he was active in his church and occasionally provided legal advice to parishioners. He presented an apparent job offer from Blackwhite Solicitors — a firm without a client account — should he be restored to the roll.

However, the SDT found the offer was not “definitively” confirmed and gave no details about the proposed role. The tribunal also noted a complete lack of repayment towards his outstanding £64,260 costs order, calling this a key factor against restoration.

Under SDT guidance, applications for restoration made within six years of being struck off are generally considered premature unless the circumstances are exceptional. The tribunal ruled that the relevant time period began with Ete’s strike-off in June 2021 — not his earlier suspension in 2019, nor the conclusion of his High Court appeal in 2022.

It found “no evidence of any, let alone substantial or satisfactory, employment within the legal profession… demonstrating that trust and confidence had been placed” in Ete since being struck off. The panel was unconvinced by his claims of providing legal help to church members, finding no supporting evidence.

Training undertaken since the strike-off was limited, and although there was “some evidence” of insight, the SDT was troubled by his “lack of curiosity” in understanding and explaining the shortfall in his firm’s client account.

The panel concluded that his case fell far short of the threshold for early restoration. Without repayment of costs, substantial legal work since strike-off, or compelling evidence of rehabilitation, Ete could not demonstrate the trustworthiness and competence required to return to the profession.

The SDT rejected his application and ordered him to pay a further £3,000 in costs