Lawyer engaged in inappropriate physical contact, comments with junior colleagues during social event
A senior partner at a New Zealand law firm has been found to have breached professional conduct standards after inappropriate physical contact and comments made to junior colleagues during a team social event.
The Standards Committee of the New Zealand Law Society ruled that the lawyer engaged in "unsatisfactory conduct" under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006.
The Committee's decision, recently made public, centred on three incidents that occurred during informal socialising following a firm-arranged team function.
The lawyer was found to have slapped a junior male colleague (referred to as Employee A) on the bottom, placed his hand on the lower back of a junior female colleague (Employee B), and made a personal comment on Employee B's appearance after she showed him a team photograph.
'Unacceptable' conduct
While the lawyer accepted some of his behaviour was inappropriate and attributed his conduct to blurred boundaries and excessive alcohol consumption, he denied any breach of professional standards or abuse of power.
However, the Committee took a different view. "The lawyer's conduct… was generally 'conduct that would be regarded by lawyers of good standing as being unacceptable' and 'unprofessional,'" the Committee stated.
The Committee further determined that the social function was still a professional event and therefore subject to legal standards of conduct.
"The team social function, including ongoing socialising which occurred after the formal portion of the function, was a professional collegial occasion," it said.
Lawyer's defences
In addressing the slap, the lawyer claimed he was behaving as a friend rather than a partner in the firm.
But the Committee dismissed this argument: "The Committee sees absolutely no circumstance in which physical contact of this type towards any colleague could be described as respectful behaviour."
"The Committee also considers this behaviour risks perpetuating a workplace culture that the profession is at pains to transform in relation to interactions between colleagues."
Regarding Employee B, the lawyer argued that placing his hand on her back while she passed through a doorway was an "innocuous courtesy" with no sexual intent.
While the Committee accepted there was no sexual motivation, it found the touch carried "an element of intimacy and overfamiliarity" and was inappropriate in the context. It noted that Employee B was clearly uncomfortable at the time and afterwards.
The lawyer's comment to Employee B — calling her "beautiful" after she showed him a team photo — was also scrutinised.
"The Committee does not accept the lawyer's position that the comment was respectful and courteous in the context, and it is clear that Employee B did not experience it this way," the decision read.
Although no specific abuse of power was identified, the Committee acknowledged that a power imbalance likely existed between the partner and the junior employees by virtue of their roles.
Despite the findings, the Committee opted not to impose a penalty, citing mitigating factors, including the lawyer's partial acceptance of fault and lack of sexual intent.
However, it resolved to publish a summary of the case, emphasising the need for ongoing education within the profession.
