11 October 2018

Clyde & Co has fired one of its most senior partners over his "inappropriate behaviour".

The partner, whom RollOnFriday is not naming, was ejected from the partnership last Friday. He was the head of one of its major teams and a recipient of industry awards. Sources described him as "incredibly senior", "very successful" and the "face" of Clyde & Co within his specialism.

However, in the last year two junior female members of his team made separate complaints to the firm about his behaviour. They said the partner was frequently "inappropriate" while very drunk at events, and encouraged team members to accompany him to strip clubs. A source said he was "fond of drinks and fond of strippers".

alone
Alone, but not lonely.

 

When the allegations came to light the firm carried out an internal investigation, and a spokesman confirmed to RollOnFriday that the outcome was the dismissal of the partner "with immediate effect". He said, "We hold ourselves to the highest standards of behaviour and expect all of our partners and staff to act with integrity, maintain high ethical standards and to respect local and global regulatory environments at all times". And, in a devastating blow to misogynistic male law firm partners aged 45 plus, "we do not tolerate inappropriate behaviour".

The C&C partner is now free to set up a boutique with this week's other fired head of department, but not one that you would want to work for.

Tip Off ROF

Comments

Anonymous 12 Oct 18

What was the 'inappropriate behaviour' he was fired for? How did the complainants know he was 'very drunk' at events?

Anonymous 12 Oct 18

It is inappropriate when making a complaint to say that behaviour is 'inappropriate' without saying what that behaviour is.

Annonymous 12 Oct 18

This article is lacking in any detail and has clearly been provided by someone with no insight into the circumstances. Senior Partners do not get sacked for attending strip clubs. Use your brains and read between the lines. Realise the events must have been serious and have some respect for the young women effected by this disgusting man’s behaviour. 

Anonymous 12 Oct 18

Barely a day goes by without me devoutly and earnestly paying respect to global regulatory environments. 

Lydia 12 Oct 18

It sounds like he was going round groping work colleagues at work events when very drunk and had a pattern of that over quite a few years, if I had to guess.

Anonymous 12 Oct 18

@Lydia - I'm not asking for guesses, I'm asking what the 'inappropriate behaviour' was that he was fired for.

Anonymous 12 Oct 18

@'how do you know the complaint' - we don't know what the complaint said. I never said we did.

Anonymous 12 Oct 18

Specifics of sexual assault and sexual harassment are unlikely to be published in an article, particularly when there will no doubt be a subsequent SRA investigation.

Anonymous 12 Oct 18

@Prurience - asking not craving, but yes, its to understand the allegations. Why do you crave not knowing - is it more than allowing your imagination to pruriently run riot at the possibilities?

Anonymous 12 Oct 18

I am fairly close to the detail of this case. The individual is highly respected and liked by those he works with. There is little or no evidence I have seen to suggest this man did anything sufficiently inappropriate or anything that was non-consensual outside of the workplace that would justify his dismissal. However, the political environment within which we are working makes everyone but the most saintly/boring a potential victim on this puritanical path we appear to have chosen.

Anonymous 12 Oct 18

@‘i am fairly close’. Indeed you know absolutely nothing about the non consensual actions of this man. So until you do you should probably keep comments like that to yourself. Or remove your anonymity. The question you should ask yourself is how would you feel these were your daughters. 

Anonymous 12 Oct 18

"Why do you crave not knowing - is it more than allowing your imagination to pruriently run riot at the possibilities?" I don't think it is important to dwell on the specifics, and profoundly unhelpful to invite speculation.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I think it is reasonable to assume that the sanction applied was commensurate with whatever the behaviour was.    It is you, and not I who are fixating on prurience.

Anonymous 12 Oct 18

@Prurient - Asking for what an allegation is isn't 'dwelling on specifics'. By discouraging the details from being disclosed you are inviting speculation. You don't know what, if anything, happened, never mind whether the punishment was commensurate. You are correct, there is no evidence. It was you and not I who mentioned prurience in attempt to avoid the details of the allegations being discussed.

3-ducks 12 Oct 18

What an odd story. I thought these sorts of establishments were virtually compulsory for City types and their clients.

Anonymous 12 Oct 18

Good riddance! Total respect to the woman who had the bravery and strength to pursue their complaints! 

Anonymous 12 Oct 18

@Daughters - Imagine how you would feel if the accused was your father. Your attempt to close down dialogue is an example of why it can be difficult for victims to speak up and why perpetators get away with it. You shouldn't call on people to identify themselves while you remain anonymous - people can use that identity to sexually harass commenters and threaten their employment.

Anonymous 12 Oct 18

The fact is serious allegations were made, they were investigated and found true by an appropriate body. So there were no false allegations. The correct action was taken by people who appraised all evidence. This discussion does not need to do the same. Victims should always be given support, which is sadly lacking from some comments and people, which can be the case in these situations, conflate the victim with the perpetrator.

A 51 year old partner 12 Oct 18

Strip clubs were a thing for the sleazier blokes in the profession in the 90s. Even then, it was frowned upon to go to them. To do so two decades later is both crass and stupid.

Why Anonymous 12 Oct 18

It's weird how so many of these stories keep the names of the people involved anonymous. Why not report the full story if you're going to report at all?

yosemite sam 12 Oct 18

Maybe they don’t name him as a concession to a poor sod who’s already been punished for his errors. 

Anonymous 12 Oct 18

To those spouting the dangerous and damaging comments, victim blaming and attempting to stand up for him. You are part of the problem. At best your comments are idiotic at worst they are dangerous. It’s people like you that make it so difficult for victims to speak out

Anonymous 12 Oct 18

My isn't his heterosexual non-gender queerness being commented on here? These people make up by far the majority of abusers. They are dangerous!

Anonymous 13 Oct 18

@'Lacking in any Detail' - what were the allegations? From the available information it isn't possible to use brains, read between the lines or make any realisation regarding the seriousness of the allegations, including the age of the women, whether the man's behaviour was disgusting or how women were affected by the behaviour. Asking what the allegations are doesn't show a lack of respect, in fact quite the opposite.

Anonymous 13 Oct 18

@"The Fact is serious allegations were made" - you don't know that. When deciding whether or not someone is guilty of something they are accused of it is important to make an informed decision, and where the accusation is serious or could have serious repercussions, not to be blasé. Here, you don't know what the allegations are, whether they are serious, the extent to which they have been investigated, whether they were all (assuming there was more than one) found true by an appropriate body, whether any were false (assuming there was more than one), whether all evidence was appraised, and whether the decision made was correct. Any passing of judgement on the matter does of course need to understand a bit about what happened, otherwise it will lack credibility and may lead to wrong assumptions and incorrect statements. On the wider discussion, victims should always be given support, which is sadly lacking from some comments and some people and can lead to people confusing, not conflating, the victim with the perpetrator. 

Anonymous 13 Oct 18

@Spouting - I don't presume to know what happened here as I don't know what the allegations were, but criticising people just for defending someone who is accused of something is indeed part of the problem. I agree with your other sentiments on victim blaming comments and the fact they make it difficult for victims to speak out. Where we are likely to differ in many cases is in our opinion of who the victim is.  

Anonymous 15 Oct 18

I worked for the firm but no longer (one of my worst jobs ever!).  I don't know the guy personally.  That said the victims are brave for speaking out and am sure they will be glad he has been dismissed but of course it never ends there for victims and this will stay with them.  

Anonymous 15 Oct 18

@Worked at Clyde but didn't like it - without knowing the allegations its difficult to comment  on victims or how long anyone is likely to be affected.

A Non 16 Oct 18

As a general rule, if you let something like this get to the stage where you have to fire someone, you’ve ****ed up. From what is said in the article, the alleged behaviour here does not seem to be at the more serious, Weinstein end of the scale but appears to involve simply being a pain in the arse. While such matters should be taken seriously I do wonder if Clydes jumped the gun in defaulting to the most stringent course of action. There may be more to it than meets the eye but, as a very busy and important partner at a firm much better than Clyde & Co, who is regularly called upon to arbitrate the fates of colleagues, clients, and the very Gods themselves, it sounds like a scenario I’d have dealt with through action short of dismissal.

Je suis Monty Don l’autobus 16 Oct 18

Those citing “victim blaming” immediately come up against the hard wall of truth that not one person in this discussion has blamed a victim in any way. This is just an intellectually idle attempt to raise a discursive third rail to shut down debate - hey guys, will you play the Hitler card next? Particular chuckles at anon of 12 October, a few posts above; “the fact is serious allegations were made [pomp pomp waffle waffle]”. Um, the “fact” here is that like everyone else on this thread, you have no idea what actually went on, and presenting as “facts” all propositions that support your desired take on the case, while dismissing all others, won’t change that. The things you cite as facts may be so, but from the outside we have no way of judging whether they are, or whether the truth is that (say) the allegations were trivial or trumped-up, the process was botched, etc. Which I’m not saying they were, but you’re not equipped to assert what’s a fact and what isn’t any more than I am. Finally, a big, ringing LOL at “the question you should ask yourself is how would you feel if these were your daughters”. 100+ years of feminism and the best approach you can come up with to frame a sexual harassment discussion is rank paternalism? Brilliant, got any others? In any event I can’t judge how I’d feel if those were my daughters because *like everyone else on here* I don’t know them or any of the people involved and I don’t know what actually happened. Wind your necks in FGS.

Please note that comments are subject to moderation.