SRA: Enright showed a lack of integrity
A facilities assistant at a law firm who targeted young female staff with “inappropriate” gifts and messages has been barred from working in the profession.
John Enright has been made subject to a control order under section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974, which means he cannot work for a law firm in future without the permission of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
He worked in the Manchester office of TLT between January 2019 and July 2024, with the misconduct coming earlier in 2024.
According to an SRA notice published yesterday, Mr Enright had “identified and selected the employees based upon a visual assessment of them in the workplace”, bought “items of an inappropriate nature” for them – but told them he had received them free of charge – and also contacted the employees via TLT’s internal messaging system with “inappropriate and unwanted messages”.
The SRA recorded: “The employees felt increasingly uncomfortable as a result of the behaviour. Initially each felt reluctant to report Mr Enright’s conduct.
“This was because independently they experienced feelings such as isolation, intimidation and/or concern for the potential impact such reports could have upon their career prospects and reputations given their relatively junior status within the firm.”
But, once reported, a “clear pattern of sexually motivated conduct” targeted at “a particular type of employee” (young and female) emerged.
The SRA said Mr Enright initially denied buying the items. “Only when later presented with evidence seized from his workstation did Mr Enright admit that the nature of both the items and offered and/or given and of his messages was inappropriate.”
He agreed with the SRA that his conduct made it “undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice without the SRA’s prior permission”.
There was “a clear and calculated pattern of behaviour” over a period of time that was sexually motivated.
Mr Enright said he viewed his actions “as an alternative outlet to his previous problems with alcohol addiction”.
He accepted that he had shown a lack of integrity by initially denying what he had done, and had undermined public trust in the provision of legal services.
The section 43 order – which is not punitive in nature – was needed because “the SRA considers there to be a risk that the behaviour and/or conduct could be repeated by Mr Enright in similar circumstances”.