Pub: Leaving drinks the scene of misconduct
A partner who told a junior colleague that he wanted to “dominate you sexually” has been suspended for two years – but his identity kept secret.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) granted an anonymity application made jointly by ‘AR’ and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), with medical evidence showing that unredacted publication of its ruling was likely to cause him “serious harm”.
AR qualified in March 2020 and is currently an in-house solicitor. He has not had a practising certificate since 2022, meaning he can continue in his role notwithstanding the suspension.
He was a partner at an unnamed firm and visiting its London office on 30 June 2022 when he joined a leaving party at a nearby pub.
He was introduced to Person A, who had been working in the London office for four and a half years, and their paths crossed again later in the evening.
Person A said AR appeared “to be excited” and “wasn’t acting like lawyers normally do”.
She said to him that it was great to meet him and then, out of the blue, he repeatedly said “I want to dominate you sexually”. He was smiling and laughing.
“Person A was shocked, she felt it was outrageous and said to him – ‘what are you saying to me?’.” AR repeated the comment and kept on telling her “yeah you’d like it, you’d want it”, even though she asked him to stop.
She described herself as “shocked, really angry and really upset” and left the conversation, and went to the train station soon after, where she was in tears.
Person A judged AR’s level of intoxication as five on a scale of one to 10.
The next day, AR messaged Person A to apologise and say his conduct was “completely unacceptable”.
“I genuinely enjoyed meeting you last night and quickly formed a bond which I hope I haven’t ruined. Even for my close friends who know me, I know I can be a bit much – pushing limits. As [Person C – a mutual colleague] says, I can be a bit of a liability!,” he wrote.
“In this case, I often say some things which are completely inappropriate, especially for someone who is not familiar with me, or where I show over familiarity – I honestly spoke to you like I would my closest friends, and I really hope that you can take this as a compliment to your fun and bubbly personality, and how comfortable I felt speaking with you.”
There was an internal investigation and AR resigned two days after it reported.
In mitigation, AR argued that he was under personal pressure due to issues in his marriage and exhausted after a tiring three-week overseas trip.
“He believes over-exhaustion together with his level of intoxication (on day 6 of drinking every day and people bought him lots of drinks at the pub prior to his interaction with Person A) has lowered his inhibition and awareness and have contributed significantly to his ‘out-of-character behaviour’ towards Person A.”
The solicitor admitted a lack of integrity and that his conduct was sexually motivated, and overtly sexual.
The SDT acknowledged that AR had self-reported to the SRA and that this was an episode of “very brief duration in a previously unblemished career”.
Neither the protection of the public nor the protection of the reputation of the profession justified a striking off the roll, it decided, with a two-year suspension appropriate.
AR was also ordered to pay costs of £32,655.
Unusually, the decision on anonymity was split. The majority – solicitor members Ed Nally and Andrew Horrocks – accepted the medical evidence and said publishing an anonymised version would meet “the proper interest of the public in knowing the sanction which would be imposed on a solicitor found to have committed professional misconduct of this type”.
The fact of being suspended would also be against the solicitor’s name on the roll.
The lay member, Rob Slack, dissented, arguing that AR’s conduct of the case showed his decision making was not impaired.
He argued: “Given the nature of the allegations there was a necessity for the public to be fully informed about the respondent’s name and professional details to allow for other complainants who may have been impacted by similar, separate conduct by the respondent to come forward and report their concerns to the SRA.
The interests of open justice outweighed AR’s interests, notwithstanding the medical evidence. AR remained under ongoing medical care and “it was clear that effective support was accessible and in place for him”.
Leave a Comment