MNKY HSE: Team had been drinking heavily
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has rejected an allegation that a managing partner instigated a non-consensual drunken kiss with a much younger paralegal.
Clearing Darren Lawrence Roiser of all allegations relating to the “inappropriate” kiss, the SDT criticised the law firm for permitting a workplace culture that “encouraged excessive drinking”.
The firm was not named in the decision but the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) said it was the now defunct London office of King & Wood Mallesons, a law firm based in Asia and Australia.
Person A alleged that, after a team dinner in Mayfair in October 2020, Mr Roiser grabbed both her arms, pushed her against a wall, kissed her on the mouth and “made a comment to her to the effect of ‘you’re very attractive’”.
The SDT found that the evidence “did not substantiate those factual particulars” apart from the kiss, which it considered sexually motivated.
His participation in the kiss was “inappropriate in context, taking into account his seniority in relation to Person A, his role in organising what was a work-related social event, and the fact that he procured an excessive quantity of alcohol for the evening”.
It was accepted that both Mr Roiser, aged 40, and the 24-year-old paralegal were “under the influence of alcohol” at the time.
The tribunal said “the amount of alcohol procured by the respondent and consumed” by Mr Roiser and five members of his team over the course of several hours “reflected a workplace culture that lacked appropriate safeguards and encouraged excessive drinking”.
This was “unwise and inappropriate in a professional setting”.
The tribunal said the “significant delay” by the SRA in bringing the proceedings, which did not begin until September 2024, was also unhelpful.
“Given that lapse of time, some inconsistencies in the witnesses’ evidence as to the material events and comments were to be expected.”
The SDT heard that Mr Roiser, admitted in 2005, was a litigator and managing partner of the London office from 2018.
Following drinks at a bar in High Holborn, the team went for dinner at MNKY HOUSE in Mayfair.
Person A asserted that, after the dinner, she went outside and waited in an alcove on the street for the other members of the team.
She said Mr Roiser joined her and “suddenly grabbed both of her arms, pushed her back against the wall, kissed her on the mouth and put his tongue in her mouth”, with such force that “the back of her head hit the wall”.
She pushed him away and “said words to the effect of ‘why are you doing this?’ or ‘what are you doing?’ His reply was ‘you’re very attractive’”.
Mr Roiser denied the allegation in its entirety and maintained that Person A followed him outside and initiated the kiss. He regretted “having briefly engaged” with it before pulling away.
The tribunal found all the witnesses in the case to be truthful. Person A “demonstrated courage and is commended for giving evidence in what were clearly difficult circumstances”. A colleague who had helped her home reported that Person A had told him what had happened.
The fact of the kiss “was not in dispute” but the SDT “did not find that the respondent instigated the kiss” and “it was not established that the kiss was non-consensual”.
Mr Roiser had not acted with a lack of integrity nor had he failed to act in a way that upheld public trust and confidence in the profession. All the allegations against him were dismissed.
There was no application for costs by either party and no order for costs.
Leave a Comment