Madrid office: SDT had jurisdiction because it was a branch of English firm
A former Spanish partner of City firm Ashurst has failed in a challenge to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s (SDT) jurisdiction in assessing his inappropriate conduct towards two female colleagues.
The SDT decided that it had the power to make an order under section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against Dr Manuel Lopez-Martinez, who had trained and progressed to partner and head of regulatory at Ashurst’s Madrid office.
Section 43 orders – used for non-solicitors – mean that the subject cannot be involved with a law firm regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) without its permission.
Dr Lopez-Martinez submitted that the SDT did not have jurisdiction to deal with the matter. He was a member of the Ilustre Colegio de Abogados de Madrid (ICAM), not a solicitor and had never practised in the UK. The alleged misconduct had taken place entirely in Madrid.
The SDT held that this argument had no merit. Ashurst was an English firm regulated by the SRA and the Madrid office “was clearly a branch office”.
Whilst it was open to ICAM to bring proceedings against Dr Lopez-Martinez, this did not exclude the SRA from doing so – in any event, ICAM had not done so as it had not received the complaints.
It went on: “The [SRA], in bringing the proceedings, was not seeking to regulate the activities of Dr Lopez-Martinez as a Spanish lawyer – those were matters that were solely within the jurisdiction of ICAM.
“[It] sought to regulate Dr Lopez-Martinez’s activities in working for an English firm, whether that work took place in England or in a branch office of an English firm. Those were matters that were solely within the power of the [SRA] to regulate.”
The SDT went on to find that Dr Lopez-Martinez made sexual advances towards a junior colleague, ‘Person A’, in her home after taking her home from a work Christmas party in 2018 and, over several months in 2021, to have pursued an “inappropriate course of conduct” with ‘Person B’, with whom he worked closely, which included twice attempting to kiss her.
The lawyer fully contested the allegations, accusing both women of falsifying their evidence.
The SDT rejected his case, which it found inconsistent with both the evidence and what he had told an investigation Ashurst commissioned from fellow City firm Simmons & Simmons when the complaints were raised internally in October 2021.
Following the Simmons investigation, Dr Lopez Martinez was “served with a retirement notice” by the Ashurst board. He is now working for a Spanish law firm.
The test for a section 43 order was whether Dr Lopez-Martinez’s conduct made it undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice. It did not find all the allegations proved, while others that were did not amount to undesirable conduct.
But his conduct at Person A’s home, and a few of the other allegations involving her, did meet the test, as did his actions towards Person B, which were “in pursuit of a future sexual relationship”.
Except in relation to one minor incident with Person A, the SDT did not find that Dr Lopez-Martinez had abused his position – with Person B, he had used friendship with her, rather than his position, to engage in “unwanted and inappropriate” behaviour.
Dr Lopez-Martinez was also ordered to pay costs of £61,500.
Leave a Comment