Anonymity on medical grounds
A male law firm partner has been suspended from practice for two years after sexually harassing a junior female colleague — but a disciplinary tribunal has ruled that he cannot be named due to medical reasons.
The incident took place in June 2022, when a partner from the unnamed firm visited its London office and later attended a leaving party at a nearby pub.
It was there that he met a female colleague for the first time and, without warning, said to her: “I want to dominate you sexually.”
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s ruling reveals that the female colleague was left “shocked” by the comment and responded, “What are you saying to me?”. Despite her telling him to stop, the partner repeated the comment and replied, “You’d like it, you’d want it; I want to do it.”
The SDT heard that the incident left the woman “shocked, really angry and really upset”, after which she ended the conversation and made her way to the train station in tears.
The next day the partner contacted her via the firm’s online messenger service to apologise, accepting his conduct had been “completely unacceptable”. He also asked to speak to her personally to apologise.
In November 2022, the partner self-reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) after the firm completed an investigation into his conduct. He resigned two days later, following the report of the findings.
The partner submitted in mitigation that he had been under pressure due to issues in his marriage and exhausted after a tiring three-week overseas trip. His exhaustion, coupled with a long period of limited social interaction during the Covid lockdown, left him “experiencing social awkwardness, anxiety and nervousness”, which contributed to his “out-of-character behaviour”.
Rubber stamping an agreed outcome between the partner and the SRA, the tribunal opted to suspend him for two years, concluding that neither the protection of the public nor the reputation of the profession warranted striking him off the roll.
The tribunal — by a split decision, two to one — also granted anonymity to the partner, following a joint application by him and the regulator. This decision followed a report from a jointly instructed medical expert, who submitted that publishing his name “posed a real risk to his life” and would contravene his rights to life and to a private and family life.
The partner agreed to pay £32,655 in costs.
