Solicitor admitted aggressive sexual comments to junior colleague, but tribunal protects his identity
A male law firm partner who sexually harassed a junior female colleague during a staff night out has been suspended for two years—but the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has ruled his identity will remain secret.
The married solicitor, who has practised for 15 years, admitted making sexually explicit and aggressive comments to the junior colleague whom he had met for the first time that evening in June 2022 at a London pub.
During the night out, the partner abruptly told the woman, “I want to dominate you sexually.” When she asked him in shock to clarify, he repeated the comment, adding: “Yeah, you’d like it.” Despite her clearly telling him to stop, he continued, insisting: “You’d like it, you’d want it; I want to do it.”
Embed from Getty ImagesThe tribunal heard that the woman was left “shocked, really angry and really upset” by the incident. She immediately walked out of the pub in distress, crying on her way to the station. The complainant remarked that the firm was known for its ethics and zero tolerance for such behaviour, and she never expected such conduct to occur within that environment.
The following day, the partner messaged the woman through the firm’s Teams chat to apologise. He admitted his behaviour had been “completely unacceptable” and acknowledged his reputation for occasionally making highly inappropriate remarks. He asked to speak to her directly to express his remorse.
Shortly after the incident, the partner reported himself to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). The firm also conducted an internal investigation, which led to his resignation just two days after the report was finalised.
In mitigation, the partner cited personal pressures, including marital problems and exhaustion from a three-week overseas trip, during which he had been separated from his young children. He argued that these factors, coupled with a long absence from social situations during the Covid lockdown, contributed to behaviour that was entirely out of character. He also claimed he had not realised the complainant was junior to him because she worked in a different office.
The SDT accepted an agreed outcome reached between the SRA and the solicitor. Although the misconduct was acknowledged as deliberate and serious, the tribunal concluded it did not warrant striking him off the roll. The solicitor was suspended for two years and ordered to pay £32,655 in costs.
In an unusual decision, the tribunal granted anonymity to the partner after a joint application from both him and the SRA. A medical expert, jointly instructed by both parties, submitted evidence stating that revealing the solicitor’s identity posed a serious risk to his life and would breach his right to life and to private and family life under human rights law.
The tribunal panel was divided on the matter of anonymity. The two solicitor members agreed with the joint application, granting the solicitor protection from public identification. However, the lay member dissented, arguing that the principle of open justice should prevail. The lay member maintained that the public had a right to know the solicitor’s name and professional details, especially given the seriousness of the misconduct.
This case highlights the tension between protecting mental health and upholding transparency in professional misconduct hearings. While the solicitor will serve his two-year suspension, the SDT’s decision to grant anonymity has sparked debate over whether justice is best served behind closed doors.
