Solicitor gets two-year suspension for sexual harassment—but tribunal grants anonymity on health grounds
A senior male partner at a law firm has been suspended from practice for two years after sexually harassing a junior female colleague at a work event—but in a controversial twist, a disciplinary tribunal ruled that he cannot be publicly named due to medical concerns.
The unnamed partner, from an unidentified law firm, had travelled to the firm’s London office in June 2022, where he later attended a farewell party at a nearby pub. It was during this gathering that he met the female colleague for the first time—and shocked her with an unsolicited and disturbing remark.
“I want to dominate you sexually,” he told her out of the blue. When she challenged him, visibly stunned, he doubled down, saying: “You’d like it, you’d want it; I want to do it.”
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) heard that the woman was left in tears. “Shocked, really angry and really upset,” she left the conversation and headed straight to the train station, deeply shaken by the encounter.
The following day, the partner messaged her via the firm’s internal chat system to apologise, admitting that his behaviour had been “completely unacceptable”. He also expressed a desire to apologise in person.
Embed from Getty ImagesAfter the law firm conducted an internal investigation, the partner self-reported the incident to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) in November 2022. He resigned just two days after the findings were reported.
In mitigation, the partner blamed his conduct on stress from marital difficulties, exhaustion from a three-week overseas business trip, and prolonged social isolation during the Covid-19 lockdown. These factors, he claimed, contributed to anxiety and “social awkwardness,” which led to behaviour he insisted was entirely out of character.
Despite the nature of the comments, the SDT opted against striking the solicitor off the roll. Instead, it approved a two-year suspension based on an agreed outcome reached between the SRA and the solicitor. The tribunal concluded that the public interest and the reputation of the legal profession could be maintained without removing him from the register entirely.
However, it was the tribunal’s decision to grant anonymity that ignited further controversy. In a rare move, the SDT allowed the solicitor to remain unnamed, citing serious health risks. The decision came after a joint application by the solicitor and the SRA, supported by medical evidence from an independent expert.
According to the expert’s report, naming the solicitor publicly would pose “a real risk to his life” and infringe upon his rights under Article 2 (right to life) and Article 8 (right to private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The ruling passed by a split decision—two tribunal members supported the anonymity request, while one dissented. The minority opinion reportedly questioned whether professional misconduct of this nature should ever be shielded from public scrutiny.
The identity ban has since sparked debate in legal circles and beyond, with critics warning that it sets a dangerous precedent. “Public accountability is critical to maintaining trust in the legal profession,” one industry source said. “If a solicitor can sexually harass a colleague and remain anonymous, it raises troubling questions about transparency and justice.”
For now, the partner will remain barred from practising for two years but will continue to be protected by a legal veil of anonymity—leaving the public in the dark over who committed the misconduct.
