A law firm partner was found to have touched two junior lawyers inappropriately while dancing
A standards committee has reminded senior lawyers to mind their conduct around junior lawyers after finding that a law firm partner displayed unsatisfactory conduct during a social event.
The partner, alias Mr B, was censured and ordered to pay $1,000 in fined as a result of his behaviour while socialising with his team of juniors. Mr B and the team had celebrated the end of year at a team function held in the afternoon; subsequently, they went bar-hopping, during which Mr B danced together with three junior lawyers.
One junior, alias Ms C, complained to the firm afterwards that Mr B had inappropriately touched her and fellow junior Ms D while dancing. She said that Mr B had placed his hand on her bottom and lower back and expressed her belief that the act was intentional. Ms D also said that Mr B had touched her lower back.
The firm named an investigator to look into the incident. Mr B said he did not remember touching Ms C’s bottom, although he did acknowledge that he had touched her lower back while dancing.
The investigator determined that Mr B had not intentionally touched the women and that he had no sexual or inappropriate intentions. The investigator suggested that Mr B’s hand may have slipped and could have resulted from how the group was dancing, given the lack of movement and the light-to-medium pressure of his touch.
Nonetheless, Mr B’s conduct constituted a violation of the firm’s sexual harassment policy because the women found his touch unwelcome and it had a negative effect, per the investigator.
A confidential report was filed to the New Zealand Law Society | Te Kāhui Ture o Aotearoa. Mr B conceded to the report’s findings and reported his conduct to the Law Society himself. He also retired from the partnership.
The committee conducted an own motion investigation and held a hearing on the papers. It determined that Mr B’s conduct contravened Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules (RCCC) 10 (professional standards), 10.1 (respect and courtesy) and 10.2 (conduct that tends to bring the profession into disrepute), although his behaviour did not meet the definition of sexual harassment as defined by the RCCC.
It concluded that Mr B had engaged in unsatisfactory conduct, noting that his behaviour was unprofessional and “would be regarded by lawyers of good standing as being unacceptable”.
“The Committee considers inappropriate conduct by senior lawyers in similar contexts is unfortunately commonplace and a long-established issue in the profession. In order to eradicate such behaviour from the profession, it is incumbent on lawyers in senior positions to be mindful of the appropriateness of their interactions with colleagues junior to them and how they may be perceived even in what feels to be a friendly group context”, the committee said in its ruling. “As a senior member of the firm, [Mr B] should have been live to this issue and avoided the situation where the established touching could occur. In his own acknowledgement, he should not have been out with the junior team and should have gone home”.
The committee judged that Mr B’s conduct fell in the low to middle range for unsatisfactory conduct. It acknowledged mitigating factors such as the senior lawyer’s responsible conduct throughout the investigation and the standards committee process, his early acceptance that his conduct was unsatisfactory, the considerable financial loss he incurred from his retirement, and his efforts to address alcohol-related issues.
While the committee concluded that sexual harassment did not occur in this case, it commended Ms C and Ms D for flagging the incident. It said its finding should not downplay the women’s experiences. The committee also expressed hope that the women considered their concerns to have been taken seriously and handled appropriately.
“This case presents an opportunity for education to the profession in the evolving areas of professional boundaries and, importantly, how these must be strictly managed when socialising in the context of firm functions”, the committee wrote in its summary of the case.
