The comment made during a phone call touched on the staff member's personal appearance
A Standards Committee concluded that remarks made by a senior lawyer to a junior staff member regarding her appearance during a phone call contravened rule 10 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, constituting unsatisfactory conduct, reported the New Zealand Law Society.
The senior lawyer believed his comments to be complimentary, and while he admitted to making platonic, complimentary remarks about the appearance of staff members occasionally, he maintained that his comments were not intended to be inappropriate.
In its investigation, the committee found that the call and the comments likely happened as described by the staff member. Nonetheless, the committee did not further explore the exact words used or attribute any improper motives to the lawyer.
The committee expressed concern over the context of the comments, noting it was implausible for such remarks to be deemed appropriate in a professional setting, especially during a telephone conversation. It took into consideration the lawyer's examples of occasional comments but found such interactions more fitting in person rather than over the phone.
Acknowledging the lawyer’s perception of the acceptability of his comments, the committee emphasised the responsibility of lawyers, especially those in senior positions, to consider the appropriateness of their interactions and how these are perceived by others.
The committee determined the lawyer breached professional boundaries and failed to treat his colleague with the required respect and courtesy as outlined in rule 10 and 10.1, amounting to unsatisfactory conduct. It noted the importance of recognising the power imbalance inherent in the relationship between the senior lawyer and the junior staff member.
In determining the penalty, the committee found the experience to have been a reflective one for the lawyer, leading to professional growth and a commitment to behavioural improvement, including undergoing relevant training. The committee viewed the misconduct as less severe compared to similar past cases and concluded that the unsatisfactory conduct finding was an adequate response, requiring no further penalties.
While no penalty was imposed, the committee aimed to remind the legal profession of the critical importance of respectful communication and maintaining professional boundaries at all times.
