how the fcuk has the SRA run up 106K of costs struggling to prove that sticking your hand in someone's bra is "sexually motivated"? 

Sorry 106k in claimed costs to investigate allegations of low level drunken antics involving associates? And 95k awarded despite only 2 allegations found proved and a short suspension being imposed? One can only conclude that the costs element is intended to be more punitive than the sanction. Speechless. 

This is a ruinous amount of money for most junior lawyers. It’s actually a scandal. A review should be undertaken immediately of the SRA’s and Capsticks’ handling of such cases. 

That's a very expensive fondle

@sumoking 

Because the respondent didn’t admit it and forced the SRA to go through a full hearing?  

So she went to Paris with him the weekend after the  “unwanted” touching? She must have been really upset by it. 

What a joke.  A bit of tomfoolery on a night out should not be punished like this.  Remember ladies, you cannot retrospectively withdraw consent.  Absolutely shocking.

This idiot was rightly reprimanded for "a bit of tomfoolery". Ah well, he got a £100k bonus, so I suppose he can afford it.

Question Man may not be the hero we deserve.

But he's the hero we need right now.

This is a sad day for short kings. 

You'd think after the hundreds and hundreds of times situations like these backfire, men would learn to just keep their hands to themselves. Is brief physical contact with a boob, be it consensual or not, really worth it? Really?!?! The rules are simple:

No physical contact if alcohol's been consumed....I mean, that's really the only rule. 

I don't care about sexist jokes and innuendos, honestly....if you can actually dish out something original, I'd be impressed rather than annoyed. Just. Don't. Fcuking. Touch. My. Bits...

If anyone responding in the negative read the piece last week which had more detail, including the defence and the prosecution, you would see (a) the women were believed to be lying by the vast majority of the posters to the article; (b) had clear motives for doing so; (c) had clearly consenusally undertaken this stuff with him, evidence including but by no means limited to exchanging 13k WhatApps, 5k Insta messages despite being married and going back to his house and getting in bed with him immediately after a finding of supposedly unwanted touching, and then testifying that they found him physically abhorrent and a nasty person they never wanted anything to do with, despite willingly and repeatedly getting into private one on one situations with him after they alleged the incidents to have occured; (d) had spoken to each other and colluded about what they would say together to HR at the law firm about him; and (e) never went to the police, nor did they themselves report this to the SRA.  

Remember also this is the CIVIL not CRIMINAL standard - it's on "balance of probabilities". So 6 of the allegations were not proven and couldn't even reach that threshold i.e. balance of probabilities. What does that say about how strong the case was and how responsibly the SRA was in going forward. It's a classic scattergun tactic.

And the consequences were a 3 year odd prosecution and a 1 year suspension and a 100k fine. And the prosecution, the findings etc are public by the SRA and reported on by the media. So anyone who plants his name into google is going to get "the pervy lawyer who was probably a rapist and got disbarred!". Just to be clear, if someone does commit a crime like rape it's completely private technically with consent needed for a DBS check - unless it is reported by the media, which most aren't, and even then there can ambiguity in identity. 

Also - Anonymous 11 April 25 14:56 - men do not disparagingly need to be told by you, or anyone else, not to commit sexual assault. The chilling effect is for a lot of men if they read this and process it is that they will feel very uncomfortable around women at work now. Would they want to be a private setting ever with anyone female from work. Would they be careful about going to firm socials. Would they simply not drink and leave early. Text people contemporaneously as evidence you were occupied and when you left the work social. 

I can't talk for anyone else but for me, I already hate so much about the job, I already feel the walls have ears, there's already so much backstabbing, I'm noping out at making eye contact with anyone at work and will make excuses not to attend work drinks. Oh gosh, maybe those excuses will be construed as "lies" by the SRA. Need to get legal advice.

There’s something seriously wrong with how this process works. First, the SRA is handling what’s essentially a criminal allegation (non-consensual sexual touching), but applying a civil standard of proof (“more likely than not”). That standard was originally meant for things like professional misconduct or incompetence — not borderline criminal behaviour — and using it in a case like this creates a huge mismatch between the seriousness of the accusation and the level of proof required to ruin someone’s career.

Second, did he even get a choice to settle? If the SRA just sent this straight to the SDT, that’s essentially a forced tribunal — and once you're there, you're looking at £100k in costs, even if half the allegations are thrown out. That’s not justice — that’s financial blackmail if he the chance to settle it's: “Accept our version of events or we’ll drown you in costs.”

And third, compare that to what would have happened in criminal court. If this had been charged as sexual assault and he was found guilty, he likely would’ve faced a £3k fine, maybe a community order, and been judged on beyond reasonable doubt. Yet here, with a much lower standard of proof, he ends up suspended and owing almost £100k.

Honestly, the regulatory outcome is worse than the criminal one — and that should worry everyone in the profession.

Anonymous 11 April 25 16:17 - are you actually kidding me? 

The last third of your comment is the most ridiculous thing I've read unless it's a joke and I missed the punchline. Are you actually expecting any woman out there to feel bad about the fact that this whole story makes men feel uncomfortable? Welcome to a woman's world, pal, have a drink on me! We walk around feeling uncomfortable from the moment we start wearing training bras! In fact, uncomfortable is the least unpleasant feeling we experience. So, candidly, I don't care that this little fiasco might make a few men a bit more cautious. 

So yeah, please don't drink and leave early. Feel paranoid, we do all the time. And please don't blame women. Blame generations of men who acted like pigs and if you have a son, teach him to do better. 

I've worked with plenty of men that don't need to be reminded of any of this. They don't feel uncomfortable, they go out for drinks and have fun, and make jokes, and talk to women, and even put their arms around female colleagues' shoulders and somehow manage to not insult anyone, cheat, have sex with married women, or lose their jobs over allegations of sexual assault. How do they do it, I wonder!?!?!? 

And yes, I'm fully aware women can and do act inappropriately. I have a thing or two to say about that too. But if we're talking pure numbers, you know which way the stats go.

Just to be clear, it’s not the SRA that came to this finding but a Tribunal which heard all the evidence.   

@16:17

What is wrong with cheating and shagging married women? Should the SRA investigate adultery, too?

It's just such a shame that a small number of unreasonably angry women ruin it for everyone.

95% of women take a little bum pat as a compliment.

They love it. Some give you a giggle. Some a little slap back. A few go for the "ooh you naughty man, what would my husband say if he was watching" as if he wouldn't love it too.

But there's always been this small, persistent minority of grumpy prudes who ruin the fun for everyone. I hate to say it, but typically they are women. By and large.

It would be so much easier for everyone of we could just make them wear some kind of symbol or icon to mark them out from the others. Then we would know who they were and could avoid them without ruining the fun for everyone else. All of the normal people could chill out and relax in peace.

"What is wrong with cheating and shagging married women?"

Hard agree. Ever since the Bribery Act drained the last vestiges of fun out of the profession this has been pretty much the main reason that most lawyers over 7PQE continue to go to work.

Take that away and the profession risks total brain-drain into Tech and Finance. There would just be no reason to stay.

However, I think that your use of the word 'women' was unnecessarily gendered and that you need to think harder about using more inclusive language.

But that aside your analysis is otherwise absolutely spot on.

Well, the original comment also referred to married women, but I do agree with you. 

Look at this piece from three years ago, for instance:

https://www.ft.com/content/bffd71c0-66db-4614-a06a-153c06a8ef6e

This shit is real. There is a growing push towards proactively destroying people's lives and careers for what is a purely CONSENSUAL practice. The notion that a questionable yet entirely private act (shagging outside of marriage, snorting the odd line of Columbian nutritional supplements on an occasional party etc) should be a cause for, in essence, you civil death. 

It is not just the absolute disproportionate, heavy-handed enforcement in minor sexual fauxpas cases (like the ones discussed here concerning this chap at Orrick) but now this slowly, very slowly, starts to creep into the realm of the purely consensual and legitimate.

And those people are not some weird spinsters or some religious zealots in the rural regions, but highly sophisticated people (a FT fashion editor, no less) right in the middle of society. In fact, in the FT, which is the media that defines the worldview of the global upper-middle class.

I touch myself inappropriately all the time and I’ve never complained.

Something’s going on here.

@00:08

Me too but I like to give myself a good telling off afterwards. 

@[email protected] - what hero?

Just don’t drink at work dos.

It’s work.  These people are not your friends.  They are interchangeable colleagues.  Be nice, make (PG 13) jokes and banter, ask about health, partners and family but keep your friends elsewhere.

If you or they were to leave would you make efforts to meet them socially?  If not, what are you playing at?