Lawyer also censured, ordered to pay emotional harm compensation
An Auckland lawyer has been suspended from practise for three months after the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal found that he engaged in years of misconduct by exposing female staff to pornography that he watched in the workplace.
The practitioner, identified only as Mr H, admitted a charge of misconduct arising from his conduct as a sole practise employer.
The Tribunal found that since 2016, Mr H watched pornography on his office computer in a way that meant staff would see the sexualised material when they entered his office.
Although he would quickly close the material when staff appeared, the Tribunal said they were "confronted with snippets and were acutely aware of his interest in sexualised objectification of women."
"Consequently, they felt horror, shock, disgust, discomfort, embarrassment, and shame," the decision states. "Their work environment was thus rendered toxic and emotionally unsafe."
A junior staff member finally raised concerns with a senior employee in November 2022, leading to a direct confrontation with Mr H.
He told staff he had an addiction to viewing the material, promised to block access and seek help, but within about two months he had relapsed and staff were again exposed.
In January 2023, when confronted about a further incident, he denied it, only admitting the behaviour after another staff member complained in February.
The Tribunal described that denial as "an aggravating feature."
By late April 2023, the employees had ceased working for him, and a complaint was laid with the New Zealand Law Society a few weeks later.
Tribunal's ruling
According to the Tribunal, the long period that Mr Hexposed his staff to pornographic material aggravated the gravity of his misconduct.
"We assess the gravity against the understandable distaste it caused his employees. When assessing the harmfulness of his misconduct, we do not grade it lower than fleeting, unwelcome, drunken fondling," it said.
"We find the repetitive pattern of recklessness arguably constitutes a greater gravity than that."
The Tribunal further further criticised his conduct as "reckless," and agreed to suspend him for three months to send a "deterrent message" to other practitioners.
"The public should be satisfied that we treated this misconduct with sufficient gravity to require a period of suspension, albeit relatively short," the Tribunal stated.
It also agreed that the lawyer's misconduct required a censure.
"Mr H has demonstrated that he is unsafe to operate as an employer of legal staff so the order that he not practise on his own account until the Tribunal authorises him to do so, fits," it said.
The Tribunal also ordered the lawyer to pay emotional harm compensation of $5,000 to each of the two complainants.
He was also instructed to contribute $15,000 to Standards Committee costs, and to reimburse the New Zealand Law Society for Tribunal costs.
