SDT: Alcohol was not totally to blame
A former partner at a City law firm has been suspended for a year after he made antisemitic, racist and sexualised comments to junior colleagues.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) also found that Ryan Sean Jack Williams touched two female colleagues in an inappropriate, unwanted and sexual manner by pinching their bottoms.
The allegations arose from three separate incidents, the latter two of which were firm parties at which he became increasingly drunk.
Mr Williams, who qualified in 2013, was a litigation partner at SBP Law. He self-reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) in February 2022 after the firm began an investigation into his conduct.
He resigned and left SBP at the end of that month, at which point the firm’s managing partner reported him to the SRA too.
Mr Williams strongly denied all the allegations but the tribunal preferred the evidence given by six of his former colleagues.
In March 2021, he was working with ‘Colleague A’ for a client who worked for a Jewish security charity.
The SDT found that he made “offensive, inappropriate and discriminatory” comments to her by saying words to the effect that Jewish people “don’t suffer from antisemitism and only have security outside of synagogues because they have lots of money and can pay for security and police”.
Mr Williams’ advocate, Jeremy Phillips KC, noted that Colleague A had not reported the comment immediately, but the tribunal “accepted her explanation that she regarded it at the time as an isolated remark”.
It was only in light of subsequent events that she included it within a broader complaint to the firm about Mr Williams’ conduct.
The SDT also rejected the submission that “any purported oversensitivity on the part of Colleague A to antisemitism increased the risk of her interpreting ambiguous remarks as discriminatory”.
The second incident was in October 2021 in a pub after a firm social event.
The SDT found that he repeatedly used the N-word to describe an opponent he was fighting in a charity boxing match.
He then made more antisemitic remarks, telling Colleague A during a discussion on the impact of racism across different ethnic groups, including white working-class people, that “racism to Jews doesn’t exist, antisemitism doesn’t exist, you’re all on top”.
Mr Williams also told her that “you only got your job because you are Jewish” and that “you Jewish people think you’re better than everyone else”, and made a comment about the “big Jew hands” of another colleague who was Jewish.
The SDT said it placed “limited weight” on the submission that Colleague A’s “continued amicable conduct towards him” after the social event undermined her evidence.
“The tribunal found that the continued contact between the respondent and Colleague A was entirely consistent with a junior employee interacting professionally with a more senior colleague in the course of her role and career development.”
At the same event, he asked another colleague whether he was sleeping with a woman at the firm, saying she was “the best one here”.
Both were drunk and the SDT found that while Mr Williams “exercised poor judgment in engaging a professional colleague in a conversation of that nature”, and the comment was “ill-advised”, it was not misconduct.
However, a subsequent comment to the effect of “what are you waiting for, you just need to bend her over,” or “just bend her over and fuck her” was inappropriate, unwanted and sexual, and in breach of the rules.
The third incident was at the firm’s 2021 Christmas party, at which he told Colleague A “you know you want me”, and pinched two other female colleagues on the bottom. The latter actions were sexually motivated, the tribunal decided.
In mitigation, Mr Phillips placed significant weight on Mr Williams’ previous good character and provided a number of testimonials. “It was submitted that this indicated that the misconduct was out of character and did not demonstrate an enduring risk.”
The SDT acknowledged that Mr Williams had been “disinhibited by significant alcohol consumption” at the two firm events – it said he should have taken “greater personal responsibility” to ensure his conduct at the first was not repeated at the second.
There was redacted medical evidence that, without the alcohol, the misconduct would not have occurred.
The ruling went on: “Whilst it accepted that the respondent recognised the link between alcohol consumption and his misconduct, including the need to avoid excessive drinking in work-related social environments so as to minimise the risk of repetition, the tribunal found that his overall insight remained limited.
“In particular, the respondent demonstrated insufficient appreciation of the impact of his misconduct upon his colleagues and upon the reputation of the profession.”
The SDT added that not all of the misconduct could be attributed to alcohol and said that, on his return to the profession, “further training in areas including equality, diversity and inclusion, workplace boundaries, sexual harassment, and professional ethics would be beneficial in reducing the risk of repetition and in developing the respondent’s insight”.
It suggested the SRA could make completion of such training a pre-condition of his return to practice.
In deciding to suspend him for a year, the SDT concluded that it “identified the need to protect both the public and the reputation of the legal profession from future harm from the respondent by removing his ability to practise, but neither the protection of the public nor the protection of the reputation of the legal profession justified striking off the roll”.