SDT: Allegations engaged principles of solicitors’ conduct
A male solicitor caught up in a ‘work hard, play hard’ culture at the London office of a US law firm has been suspended for a year for two instances of sexually touching female colleagues.
At the same time, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) cleared Lewis Brady, 33, of seven other allegations of inappropriate touching.
Mr Brady, who qualified in 2017, worked at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe. The SDT said it recognised he was “a relatively young solicitor who, at the time, worked in an environment characterised by a ‘work hard, play hard’ culture where long working hours were followed by regular heavy drinking during social gatherings among colleagues”.
The evidence showed that “the ‘pushing of boundaries’ was a commonly accepted aspect of social interaction” in the group who socialised together. Mr Brady said they did not socialise as work colleagues, but rather as friends who happened to work at the same firm.
The SDT rejected Mr Brady’s contention that, because the allegations arose outside of the workplace, they did not engage the SRA code of conduct and so did not raise a regulatory issue.
Allegations of non-consensual touching, “at a minimum”, were capable of engaging the principles of public confidence in the profession and integrity, it said, “if not the standards of behaviour implicit in the principles and the code for solicitors”.
Mr Brady denied all the allegations – seven of which were made by ‘Person A’, a paralegal, and two by Person B, a managing associate – which concerned non-consensual touching while socialising outside work.
He said he was “heartbroken” when listening to the evidence of people he had considered “close friends”.
The first instance found proven was at an ‘after party’ dinner in October 2021 that followed a firm-organised wine-tasting event.
The SDT found that Mr Brady touched Person A’s bottom more than once – it was “unwanted by Person A, inappropriate and sexually motivated” – and she shared her concerns with a colleague.
His actions failed to maintain public trust and confidence and showed a lack of integrity, the SDT found, but it rejected the charge that he had abused his position.
Despite holding different roles within the firm, he and Person A had a similar level of experience, while they worked in separate teams. “There was no practical imbalance of power between them within the group of colleagues who socialised together.”
A similar allegation at Christmas drinks a few weeks later was not found proven, with the colleague – who described herself as being on “high alert” – not witnessing any of the alleged occurrences.
The other proven incident took place in March 2022 when Mr Brady and Person B, who were both drunk, shared a taxi home after a night out and he touched her breast under her clothing three times, despite her smacking his hand away each time and telling him not to.
Person B messaged him a few days later, demanding an apology and a “promise you are never going to do it again”. Mr Brady replied: “Holy fuck… I’m not even sure what I was doing. I had an awful feeling the next day I was being inappropriate.” He immediately followed this with: “I am sorry.”
Person B replied: “It’s okay I just need to know it won’t happen again” followed by “And when I say no, I mean no”.
Again this failed to maintain public trust and lacked integrity but was not an abuse of position.
In mitigation, Mr Brady said he had been attracted to Person A and had a genuine belief that she felt the same way.
He said his “very close relationship” with Person B, who is married, was “sometimes very confusing for him”.
“Their closeness was evidenced by the level of contact they had during and beyond office hours. He estimated that a combined total of 10,000 personal messages had been exchanged between them by the end of their relationship.”
He told the tribunal that the proceedings have had a “significant personal impact”, leading to acute depression and suicidal thoughts. He put forward a range of character references that “highlighted his positive qualities and supported his previous unblemished regulatory history”, the SDT said.
The SDT described his actions as “spontaneous and occurred during, or following, the consumption of substantial amounts of alcohol”.
They had a “significant impact” on the two women – Person A said she sought assistance from a specialist psychologist as a direct result, while Person B highlighted how they had affected both her marital and work relationships.
As well as the context of the firm’s culture, the SDT said it took into account, to a lesser extent, that the events occurred shortly after the national lockdown, “a period marked by social and psychological adjustments”.
But despite the mitigating factors, “the proved matters of non-consensual touching adversely affected the reputation of profession, and the appropriate sanction was a fixed term of suspension for 12 months”.
Mr Brady was also ordered to pay costs of £95,000.
Leave a Comment