Christmas party: Solicitor’s acts were not involuntary, tribunal rules
A male senior partner who made inappropriate sexual remarks to four more junior female colleagues while drunk at his firm’s Christmas party has been suspended for a year.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) rejected Timothy Eagle’s argument that his behaviour was involuntary because of the unexpected effect that alcohol had on him following major surgery.
There was no evidence to support the contention and it instead indicated that he had failed to take full responsibility for his behaviour, the tribunal said.
Mr Eagle, who qualified in 1983, was senior partner of Norwich firm Hansells. His misconduct took place on 23 December 2022, not long after he had returned to work following a prolonged period of severe ill-health, which included removal of part of his liver.
Following the Christmas lunch, further celebrations took place back at the office. In the kitchen, he told Person A that “you are just so sexy”, placed his hand on her waist, and also said to her: “If I was 20 years younger, I would like to fuck you right now.”
To Person B, he said “Your shoulders look lovely, I’d love to kiss them”, and then kissed her bare right shoulder, despite her telling him not to. In response, Mr Eagle said: “I don’t believe you, every woman likes being kissed.” He reacted angrily when she said he was making her uncomfortable.
With Person C, he pointed towards middle of her thighs, where her dress met in the middle, and told her that the dress was “easy access”.
Finally, he told Person D that he would “really love to fuck” another colleague.
Eventually, a colleague called Mr Eagle’s partner to collect him from the party because he was so drunk.
He apologised profusely to each woman in the days after, claiming he could not remember what he had done.
The partners suspended Mr Eagle as a result but he retired before disciplinary proceedings concluded.
Mr Eagle admitted most of the allegations at the SDT but denied that he acted with a lack of integrity and that his conduct in relation to Person C was sexually motivated.
He provided no medical report to support his contention that his behaviour must have been caused at least in part by something other than excess alcohol.
One character witness recounted how “amicable” Mr Eagle usually was when drunk and said his behaviour at the Christmas celebrations were “a shock to everyone”.
Mr Eagle said his liver specialist had not told him that alcohol might cause his behaviour to change in this kind of way and that he had been “in a state of automatism” as a result.
The SDT found he was “an experienced drinker” who had been advised to reduce his drinking in order to preserve his liver health – but did not do so on this occasion.
“It was or should have been obvious to him that too much alcohol might adversely affect his self-control and behaviour.
“It was or should have been obvious to him that it might all the more so affect those things as a result of his health conditions in general and the state of his liver in particular.”
His conduct was not involuntary, the SDT went on, finding he “exhibited a level of control over his behaviour at the time which was inconsistent with his contention that it was involuntary and that he was not subjectively aware of what he was doing”.
The event took place in his professional life and showed a lack of integrity.
Mr Eagle submitted that the nature of his relationship with Person C meant she would have known his comment was a joke. But the SDT said it was “in no doubt” that the words were “sexually motivated”.
Mr Eagle said he did not intend to practise as a solicitor again but was working as a notary and the decision of the SDT could affect this and his ability to survive financially.
Deciding sanction, the SDT said all the women were upset by his behaviour and that the argument over the impact of alcohol on him showed that he had “failed to take full responsibility”.
In mitigation, the misconduct although serious was one “of brief duration in a previously unblemished career” and Mr Eagle had shown insight into the harm he had caused.
A “substantial sanction was necessary given the need to maintain public confidence” in the profession, and it ruled that a 12-month suspension was “fair and proportionate”.
Mr Eagle was also ordered to pay costs of £30,000, reduced from the £47,130 claimed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, in part to reflect his early admissions.