'Don't worry, it's dark outside so no-one will spot us.'
An Allen & Overy partner* has resigned after he was filmed through a window enjoying the company of a junior colleague.
The lawyer was caught on camera in the Magic Circle firm's London office by a member of the public who was walking through Spitalfields Market.
"Are they...are they..?" asks the stunned pedestrian in the short clip, as his companion jokes, "Are you okay hon?"
'Matt Hancock? Hold my beer.'
The camera zooms in to show a younger woman embracing the older, white-haired partner, who, in broad daylight, in a glass-fronted office, which opens onto a London market, proceeds to merrily move through the bases while rubbing against her.
"Oh. My. God", remarks the cameraman, who spared audiences the worst of it by slapping a Parental Advisory sticker over the cursed footage before releasing it online. "Watch his hands, look at his hands", mutters his companion.
'If only those uptight regulatory lawyers could see me now.'
The incident occurred several months ago and has been entertaining WhatsApp groups ever since.
But the cost has been high for the partner, who was not supposed to be in the office at the time, and was definitely not supposed to be in the office breaching social distancing guidelines by fumbling at a youngster, and was absolutely not meant to do it all on Instagram.
Once news of his indiscretion reached the wider partnership, he was permitted to resign.
'Do you get the feeling we're being watched?' 'Sshhh, it's just the exercise ball.'
His ignorance of the properties of glass recalls the former Hogan Lovells solicitor who was filmed through a window looking at naughty websites, and the woman who chose to void her bowels beside a busy Norwich road by crouching behind a bush, in full view of everyone working in the Mills & Reeve office on the other side of it.
A spokesman for Allen & Overy said, "The video depicts inappropriate workplace conduct which is not in line with our Code of Conduct. The matter has been investigated and addressed in line with the firm’s internal processes”.
*Offending partner is not actually called Alan.
Are you an in-house lawyer? Then please, take RollOnFriday's poll for in-house lawyers:
Comments
547
67
This happened at dwf Liverpool. Hill dicks complained as they could see!
320
187
No reason to resign. No reason for any action whatsoever. Man and woman get it on at work. Nothing special and not news.
I'll fix the headline for you: Stupid ***t films people ****ing and posts it online.
280
92
Didn't enjoy your 15 minutes then, Onanymous?
505
110
Was she asked to leave too? Doesn't seem to be any suggestion it was not consensual so presumably equality would suggest.....
340
130
Out of interest: banter aside, that's such a moronic comment about what equality means. You clearly skipped that class.
461
80
what did Alan do with the big red ball?
557
93
It's very simple. If you are a partner, staff is off limits. Full stop.
Even if they write you adoring poems and say that you are more handsome than Adonis and they want your kids, it's a no-go area. If you somehow are the only octogenarian who non-partner staff members are genuinely attracted to irrespective of the power play, and fall in love with, then that's great. That person can find another firm to work for and you can then play together all you want. Until then, do nothing and keep your hands off them, and push them back if they make moves on you.
407
82
Fired for heavy petting. What a poor effort.
Needs to go out in a blaze of glory. Full on Wolf of Wall Street style, banging away on the board room table.
560
86
"His ignorance of the properties of glass" massive heh!
292
71
I am more interested in the fact they appear to have co-ordinated outfits. Who wears all white to the office? Will someone think of the risk of stains?! On second thought, maybe don’t.
396
92
Clearly both parties will have been fired.
A&O said it's 'inappropriate work place conduct'.
I assume that their work place conduct rules don't say that non-partners can have a fumble in the office but partners can't.
It's just bigger news that a partner got sacked for it because life.
568
75
I bet they thought a bit of Matt Hancock style snogging was a good idea.
Same result.
415
60
"permitted to resign" heh
573
77
"if they write you adoring poems and say that you are more handsome than Adonis and they want your kids"
This would be a huge turn-off tbf.
Pro-tip for thirsty associates, partners are not looking for sappy junior school romance - they would much prefer you to dispense with the classical references and amateur verse. Don't even think about leaving an apple on their desk. Stick to scandalously form-fitting attire that barely masquerades as officewear, sultry lip-licking during meetings, and draping yourself suggestively across items of office furniture while in their view. The photocopier is a solid choice if you ever manage to corner them in the printing room. Avoid doing it on the recycling bin.
You should be giving the impression of being the sexual equivalent of a crossbreed between a ravenous tiger, a Lamborghini, and a bondage instructor. It's not the easiest visualisation in the world, but once you see it in your mind's eye then you'll know.
That is the only advice I'm giving today that I'm not going to charge for. You are welcome.
437
90
Looks like the wrong angle for alan
408
88
I onc3 went through 4 of the office in 12 months and considered myself a legend.
I wasn't.
I was a deeply unhappy senior associate with nothing to lose.
349
83
"I was a deeply unhappy senior associate with nothing to lose."
Well I for one am just glad to hear that the fourth one finally cheered you up.
It's a numbers game. The Dalai Llama said it himself.
(Alternative punchlines included: You think you were unhappy? You should have heard the other four.)
732
92
The firm completely botched this. The video was circulated among a small group of people ages ago - months ago. I saw it but not many people did. Most people laughed then forgot about it.
The managing partner in all his infinite wisdom then, months later, emails ALL STAFF saying there had been a salacious video and to not circulate it. Of course, this was news to basically everyone at the firm and so everyone then wanted to see it, and circulation ramped up. Think the A&O leadership has a lot to answer for here. Really unimpressive handling (not saying the partner shouldn’t be sanctioned, but that email was moronic).
430
65
where can we find a copy of this video ? please comment? I want to see if it is my dad.
403
108
@12:15 - you're one of those types who thinks they're clever and funny when everyone else thinks you're a k**b.
507
94
What part of the code did he breach? I don’t understand why partners can’t date staff, as long as they are not direct bosses. Certainly at A&O half the firm seems to be sleeping with each other…
734
69
"@12:15 - you're one of those types who thinks they're clever and funny when everyone else thinks you're a k**b."
Whereas you sound happy, well adjusted, and a joy to all who meet you...
605
105
Was also in the office of the Partner in charge of Graduate Recruitment, even though it wasn’t that person. Dude must be mad.
734
106
Why are people defending this conduct?
The offices are well known to be A&O, they are doing it in a first floor office (that does not belong to either of them) in full view of anyone in the surrounding area given it was 9pm and still light and if you watch the video you can see that he has his hands inside her pants.
The fact it’s a Partner just shows on top of their combined stupidity that he is also abusing his power. And whilst he’s definitely not the only partner at A&O doing so, he is the only one that’s stupid enough to do it in circumstances like these that bring the entire firm into disrepute.
This makes me embarrassed to work for the firm to be honest.
583
137
What evidence is there that he was abusing his power over her rather than her abusing her power over him?
Is there any proof that this conduct took place on the first floor?
Are you able to demonstrate to my satisfaction that the entire episode was not fabricated using a combination of readily available Tik-Tok filters layered over an otherwise unremarkable shot of an empty office?
297
88
Ahh, partners. In my shop one of the partners got an associate pregnant via a three-way also involving his wife and, when the (female) managing partner told him to keep it in his pants, she (MP) was forced out.
867
138
@13.43 - correct, there is a mutual power imbalance. However, as it was consensual it is none of our business and the person who comes out of it looking bad is the person filming.
Glad you realise the importance of evidence though!
216
97
@Lolz - in what way was she forced out? Why did she tell him to 'keep it in his pants'? Surely none of her business.
336
100
?! - defending the partner or the junior? What power imbalance? Its really important not to let jealousy cloud our judge6in cases like this.
455
86
@14:05 - defending the Partner or that the whole thing is fine or really not a big deal. See 9:24 and 10:21 etc
Who exactly is jealous? ? I know exactly what the power imbalance is and their marital statuses. I’m not jealous of either of them - I’d feel sorry for them if they weren’t so stupid.
499
99
@Anonymous 13 August 21 14:03
Some people take the view, and as a woman who's worked in law for quite a while, I do too, that power imbalances in offices can be exploited. Not always of course, but they can be.
And as a general comment about law firms, someone who behaves, in lots of ways, as if the rules don't apply to them, but who is also the relationship partner for very many clients, can exert influence in a partnership such that that the position of someone attempting to manage them becomes essentially untenable.
359
97
@ Lolz 13 August 21 13:54
That hero deserves your respect. He deserves at least 100 lad points. Legend.
401
84
@14:02 if it was in private and/or in a place unconnected to the office, I agree. They made it the firm’s and its employees’ business by doing it at the firm, in front of an external facing office with a floor to ceiling window, in daylight.
584
84
Ahem, 11.09. I was just bending over to pick up some documents and now I seem to be, well, stuck. Do you think you might come over here and help?
647
68
Was All Bar One closed that eve?! Now we know why certain partners want the Assssociates back in the office yesterday...
558
82
Question Woman 13 August 21 14:02: evidence is very important. Bad faith questioning is as pernicious as it is tedious.
540
89
He should look on the bright side. When I engaged in inappropriate sexual behaviour, I was voted out of the House of Lords. He has only been asked to leave a law firm!
693
102
Though I should of course add that I was subsequently cleared, unequivocally and with a full apology, of all wrongdoing by the BSB.
518
94
@Lolz - remember the power imbalance is mutual though. A junior behaving as if thd rules don't apply to them is also difficult to manage.
473
106
@17.16 - correct, evidence is very important.
Which questions do you think are in bad faith and why?
660
218
It has just been pointed out to me that I was not cleared of wrongdoing by the BSB, whether unequivocally or at all, nor they did they apologise to me. I was cleared to practise, which is different. The corrective article in the Times made this clear: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/corrections-and-clarifications-lqz3n72pw:
'The headline to our article “Lord Lester cleared of peerage-for-sex claims” (News, last week) incorrectly suggested, when read alone, that Ms Jasvinder Sanghera’s complaint to the House of Lords about Lord Lester’s conduct may have been dismissed. The article reported on the outcome of an investigation into Lord Lester by the Bar Standards Board. The findings of an earlier House of Lords committee are unaffected by this ruling. We apologise for any distress caused."'
622
180
Anonymous 13 August 21 18:58: remember that the power imbalance is not mutual.
663
192
Lolz 13 August 21 14:16 is spot on.
407
196
was the partner and associate here married (to different people)
402
197
These comments are not going well for the apologists for the partner - or Lord Mo Lester.
538
70
Anonymous 13 August 21 10:19: sums it up perfectly.
730
113
@19.49 - it is mutual as each has power over the other
491
117
@City - LOL is indeed spot on that there are power imbalances, both with men over women, and women over men.
She isn't spot on about the rules not applying because there are no rules stopping partners dating juniors - if there was there would be a lot of disappointed juniors.
442
106
?! @14.13 - people who work together having a consensual relationship isn't a big deal as far as work goes. It is wrong if either or both are involved in relationships, but its not for the firm to police.
Unfortunately a lot of the criticism directed towards people in cases like this does arise out of jealousy. You may not be jealous, but a lot of people doing the criticising will be.
Criticism would be best directed at the person filming it all and circulating it. That sounds 'creepy'.
402
73
How do I find this?!