The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s recent decision in SRA v Stevens (Case No. 12691/2024) has sent a clear reminder to the profession about the non-negotiable nature of integrity and undertakings.
Background to the case
The Respondent solicitor (S) was acting for a client in a property purchase. He gave misleading information to the solicitor acting on the other side. He told her by text that he had already received his client’s deposit funds and that he would transfer them by a certain date. In reality, he had not received the deposit at all, and he knew this at the time.
In addition to providing false assurances about the deposit, S also gave a formal undertaking promising that he would transfer his client’s deposit and send over the signed contract by a certain date. He then failed to fulfil this undertaking.
S then sought to prevent the seller’s solicitor and her client from providing information to the SRA about these events. He attempted to persuade them not to report his conduct.
The Tribunal found each of these allegations proven. His actions involved recklessness and lack of integrity (applying the principles of Wingate and Brett), and ultimately undermined public trust in the profession.
“…On its own a breach of an undertaking would be serious however in the Respondent’s case this was combined with reckless misrepresentation, where he had represented that funds were “in the system” when he knew they had not been received. He may have perhaps thought that he would be in receipt of funds, but at the time he made the representation he knew that he did not have them. The Tribunal agreed that this had gone beyond wishful thinking and represented recklessness of a high order…”
“…The misconduct had not been an isolated incident and brief error of judgment but had involved serious lack of integrity at a very high level on two separate occasions (separated by a little over a month) demonstrating a pattern of behaviour and a troubling mind set on the Respondent’s part. The Respondent had failed to self-report the misconduct and instead had taken active steps to prevent the conduct being reported to the SRA, effectively hiding behind his client and attempting to persuade a fellow solicitor not to fulfil their own regulatory reporting responsibilities. This was found to be particularly egregious….”
S was struck off.
Why integrity matters
The SRA Principles lie at the heart of solicitors’ professional conduct obligations. In this case, Principle 5 (“act with integrity”) was at the centre of the findings. The SRA dropped the dishonesty allegation.
Honesty is a straightforward concept: telling the truth. Integrity, however, is broader and encompasses adherence to ethical standards even when no one is watching. It requires solicitors to act in a way that maintains public trust in the profession.
The solicitor’s misleading statements, failure to discharge an undertaking, and attempts to pressure another solicitor to stay silent fundamentally undermined integrity and trust in the profession.
The importance of undertakings
Undertakings are a vital part of legal practice, especially in property and transactional work. They are personal promises given by solicitors, relied upon by others to progress transactions efficiently and securely.
A breach of an undertaking can have severe consequences for clients and counterparties, and it risks bringing the profession into disrepute. In this case, the breach was compounded by a failure to remedy it promptly and a further attempt to obstruct regulatory oversight.
There is no room for negotiation when it comes to compliance with undertakings. If a solicitor gives an undertaking, it must be honoured promptly.
Failure to cooperate with the regulator
Another key learning point is the duty to cooperate with regulators. The SRA Code of Conduct (for both individuals and firms) places an explicit obligation on solicitors to cooperate with the SRA and other oversight bodies.
In this case, S not only failed to report himself but actively sought to prevent the reporting of his own misconduct. This is a direct violation of his regulatory duties.
This was one of the most damaging aspects of the case: trying to stop a counterpart from reporting was viewed as a serious aggravating factor, contributing to the ultimate sanction of striking off.
Aggravating factors
The Tribunal considered various aggravating features. These included the deliberate nature of the conduct, the duration over which it occurred, and the potential harm to the counterpart solicitor’s own regulatory position had they followed the solicitor’s request.
Lessons for solicitors
What can the wider profession learn from this case?
- Do not underestimate the seriousness of undertakings: An undertaking is a solemn promise. Failing to comply is not just a technical breach; it strikes at the foundation of trust in legal transactions – particularly property. We can get so used to giving undertakings that we can get complacent – be careful when your team starts using the term “routine undertaking”!
- Never interfere with another solicitor’s professional obligations: Solicitors have a duty to report serious misconduct where appropriate. Any attempt to prevent this is a grave breach of professional ethics.
- Integrity is paramount: The case illustrates the wide scope of integrity. It goes beyond mere honesty to encompass respect for the rule of law, professional standards, and the public interest.
- A cautionary tale for risk management: Firms should ensure that systems and supervision arrangements are robust enough to prevent individual solicitors from acting unilaterally in ways that endanger client and professional interests. Interestingly, the misleading statements to the opposing solicitor were made in a text, presumably therefore outside the file itself. There are clear dangers of allowing team members to use communication channels that avoid supervision.
Wider reflections on professional culture
Beyond the individual failings of S, this case serves as a stark reminder of the collective responsibility solicitors bear. The profession operates on trust: between solicitors, with clients, and with the public. When that trust is eroded, it affects everyone.
Culture and leadership within firms play a crucial role in preventing such breaches. Encouraging an environment where issues can be raised openly, and where compliance is valued over short-term gains, is essential.
Conclusion
The Tribunal’s decision to strike off S was perhaps inevitable given the facts. His breach of undertaking was serious enough; the subsequent cover-up attempt and interference compounded the matter beyond repair.
While most solicitors would never contemplate such behaviour, the case serves as a useful moment to reflect on our own practices. Are we living up to the standards of integrity and honesty in every aspect of our work? Are our firm’s systems strong enough to detect and address early signs of misconduct?
Ultimately, this case is a reminder that the solicitor’s badge of honour – the trust placed in us by society – can be lost in an instant if core professional duties are ignored. Maintaining that trust must remain our highest priority.
