Solicitor Charles Stevens was struck off by the SDT for breaching an undertaking on a property sale and attempting to prevent the matter from being reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). Stevens had given an undertaking to transfer a £650,000 deposit for a £6.5m property sale but failed to do so. He then tried to stop the seller and their solicitors from reporting the breach to the SRA.

Stevens argued that his actions were not driven by dishonest intent. He claimed that the failure to transfer the deposit was due to an oversight and not a deliberate attempt to mislead the seller or their solicitors. He highlighted several mitigating factors, including personal and professional pressures he was facing at the time. It was said that the pressures contributed to his failure to fulfil the undertaking and his subsequent actions. He expressed remorse for his actions and underlined the steps taken to rectify the situation. He argued that he had made efforts to resolve the issue with the seller and their solicitors once he discovered the mistake. He pointed to his previously unblemished professional record as evidence of his general integrity and reliability; submitting that the incident was an isolated lapse in judgment rather than indicative of a pattern of dishonest behaviour. He presented character references from colleagues and clients who attested to his integrity and professionalism. The references were intended to demonstrate that his actions in this case were out of character.

Despite these arguments, the SDT found that the seriousness of the misconduct, particularly the attempt to prevent the matter from being reported to the SRA, outweighed the mitigating factors. The tribunal concluded that removing Stevens from the roll was necessary to maintain public trust in the legal profession.

The relevant SRA Principle

The relevant SRA principle in this case was Principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019, which requires solicitors to act with integrity. Integrity is a fundamental tenet of the legal profession, ensuring that solicitors maintain the trust of the public and uphold the rule of law. The SDT were satisfied that Stevens' actions in misleading the seller about the deposit and attempting to prevent the reporting of his misconduct violated this principle.

The most likely sanctions in cases involving allegations of dishonesty?

In cases involving allegations of dishonesty, the SDT has a range of sanctions at its disposal, including:

Strike Off: The most severe sanction, removing the solicitor from the roll of solicitors, effectively ending their legal career.

Suspension: Temporarily preventing the solicitor from practicing law.

Fines: Imposing a financial penalty.

Reprimands: Issuing a formal reprimand or warning.

Conditions on Practice: Imposing conditions on the solicitor's practice to prevent future misconduct.

Dishonesty is considered to be one of the most serious forms of misconduct, often leading to a strike-off because it fundamentally undermines the trust placed in solicitors by their clients and the public. In Stevens' case, the SDT applied the principles and sanctions guidance as follows:

The tribunal found that Stevens' actions demonstrated a serious lack of integrity. His attempt to mislead the seller and prevent the reporting of his misconduct were seen as deliberate and calculated actions that breached Principle 2. The tribunal decided that Stevens' misconduct was not an isolated incident. They pointed to different misrepresentations over a period of time, albeit relating to the same facts. This was a significant factor in determining the severity of the sanction. The failure to self-report and his active steps to prevent the conduct from being reported were seen as aggravating factors. The tribunal emphasised the importance of self-reporting in maintaining the integrity of the profession. Given the seriousness of the misconduct, the tribunal decided that striking Stevens off the roll was the appropriate sanction.

Conclusion

This case highlights the importance of integrity in the legal profession and the severe consequences of breaching this fundamental principle. The SDT's decision to strike off underscores the seriousness with which the tribunal views dishonesty and its commitment to maintaining public trust in the legal profession. Obtaining early specialist advice on whether particular conduct breaches principles and the codes of conduct can be crucial in protecting a career. Advice on whether to self-report and what the report should contain is an extremely important part of the process because a lawyer’s first reaction to an allegation of misconduct (from wherever it arises) echoes throughout the SRA’s investigation.

Evan Wright is a dual qualified solicitor and barrister. Evan practices as a barrister and partner in JMW’s professional regulation team.