In recent weeks Capsticks, Adldeshaw Goddard and Jones Day have quietly ushered out male partners accused of misbehaviour, RollOnFriday has learned.

A Capsticks partner was dismissed for inappropriate conduct this month, according to inside sources. The firm would not comment either way, but a source close to management disputed the contention that the axed partner's offending behaviour came about while he was inebriated.

Capsticks appears to be taking a hard line on ill-behaved partners. RollOnFriday revealed in April that it terminated a male (they're always male) partner for "inappropriate conduct". RollOnFriday is not naming the allged wrongdoers.


cloud

The leaving party was a cracker.


A senior Addleshaw Goddard partner has left, too, following an investigation into allegations of bullying, harassment, and pregnancy and maternity discrimination conducted by a fellow partner and the HR director. He was suspended in June. He resigned, prior to any ruling of gross misconduct according to a source.

A spokesman for Addleshaw Goddard said, "We do not comment on the reasons for partner departures or about stories relating to specific partners", but did confirm that the partner "has been on garden leave since June 2019".

He continued, "As a general statement about working within our firm, we strive for a culture which is both supportive and inclusive and we will do all we need to do to ensure that we live up to the expectations we set for ourselves".

The ex-AG partner told RollOnFriday he made the "difficult decision to leave" because "I felt that my career aspirations would be better served elsewhere following a number of internal discussions". He said the allegations "are untrue and cannot be substantiated”.

Meanwhile, a prominent London Jones Day lawyer has been given his marching orders by Steve Brogan, Managing Partner and all-powerful keeper of the US firm's black box of partners' remuneration.

There is no suggestion that the Jones Day man was encouraged to leave as a result of being a menace. However, said sources, he left having "foisted himself on many unwilling female associates and trainees", having "got an associate pregnant", and having "slept with a newly-wed female associate". He has now received "the Brogan letter and his iron mountain box", said an insider. And hopefully a gold chastity belt instead of a watch.

"And not before time", according to a source who described him as a "a horrible sleazebag who got away with it for far too long". The source is understood to have contributed little, if anything, to the partner's farewell fund.

While boorishness is a quality which several female JD partners say the firm tolerates in its male partners, the firm did actually suspend a partner in the London office earlier this year after allegations of sexual harassment.

News of the under-the-radar exits follow plans unveiled by Freshfields last week to fine its partners a percentage of their drawings if they are caught being naughty. That decision came after former Freshfields partner Ryan Beckwith pulled the Magic Circle firm into a PR nightmare when he fought the SRA's contention that he brought the profession into disrepute by having sexual contact with a more junior Freshfields lawyer. He resigned just before the SDT judgment against him was made.

Tip Off ROF

Related News

This Week’s News

Comments

Anonymous 01 November 19 07:29

What was the 'inappropriate conduct' the Capsticks partner was accused of? What evidence is there that he was guilty of that conduct?

Anonymous 01 November 19 07:51

What was the 'inappropriate conduct' the Capsticks partner was terminated for in April? Is it only males who are accused of 'inappropriate conduct' there?

Sumoking 01 November 19 08:22

bit different your reporting on City partners vs the detailed glee you go into on that Lord Harley bloke that we keep seeing pop up

Anonymous 01 November 19 08:24

Totally my mistake, but I misread "allegations of bullying, harassment, and pregnancy and maternity discrimination" as including "allegations of pregnancy".

Which dampened the shock when I read on and saw that the JD partner actually DID get someone pregnant (allegedly).

On a different note, I see from the other comments shown at the time of posting that the Capsticks PR Bots are out in force...

Billy Bumfluff 01 November 19 08:26

We have a sea lion.

He'd like us to think there are two sea lions but we know there's only one and we know it's a he. 

Billy Bumfluff 01 November 19 08:27

And if you don't know the source of the phrase "sea lioning", it's here.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/873/260/a5b.png

Anonymous 01 November 19 08:37

Why do you think someone from Capsticks would ask for details of the allegations against the partners 8.24 - are you suggesting they don't know?

Orwell 01 November 19 08:42

It's not an HR bot.  It's Mr Evidence, an incel with an obsession with questioning the evidence of any potential allegation of sexual misconduct against men. 

Oddly, his fervour for evidential rigour to rof's reporting doesn't appear to extend to any other topic.

Orwell 01 November 19 08:44

Anonymous 01 November 19 08:35

Were the partners who replaced the ones in these stories male or female?

Very good point!  After all, if they were female, it would be FURTHER EVIDENCE of the great female conspiracy to take over the world by spuriously claiming to be victims of sexual harassment!  Down with the FemiNazis, eh Mr Evidence?

Anonymous 01 November 19 08:46

What were the allegations of bullying, harassment, pregnancy and maternity discrimination faced by the Addleshaw Goddard partner? What were the results of the investigation?

Anonymous 01 November 19 08:53

It's because there are so many false accusations related to sexual misconduct Orwell, as your posts show.

So were the replacement partners male or female (or 'incel' or 'feminazi') as you might say?

Anonymous 01 November 19 08:55

It is no more possible to 'get someone pregnant' than it is for someone to 'get themselves pregnant'.

Anonymous 01 November 19 08:58

The Addleshaw Goddard partner says that the allegations were untrue. If they are, then he was the one bullied or harassed. It really depends on whether or not they are true.

Orwell 01 November 19 09:05

Where's your evidence that there are "so many false accusations related to sexual misconduct", Mr Evidence?  And WTF would I know if the replacement partners are female?  I am not part of the Great Female Conspiracy I'm afraid.

Anonymous 01 November 19 09:30

"It is no more possible to 'get someone pregnant' than it is for someone to 'get themselves pregnant'."

Er.. what?!

Pretty sure each of my 3 kids resulted from me getting my wife pregnant (although there was that episode with the shifty-looking milkman). 

Also pretty sure people can "get themselves pregnant" - so-called turkey basters and all that.

So, both are possible.  I mean, you're logically (but not necessarily statistically) correct to say that the former is "no more possible" than the other, but since both are possible I'm left kinda confused as to what your point was.  And I've had my caffeine this morning, so pretty sure the problem isn't me this time.

So, humour me: what was your point exactly?  (I'd rather ask, than assume you're making some incredibly misguided (and factually incorrect) point about the act of becoming pregnant being necessarily consensual, or attributable to the woman's negligence.)

Anonymous 01 November 19 09:36

So suddenly evidence is important Orwell. Your comments are examples of false accusations, there are many more.

Right, so we've established you don't know whether the replacement partners were male or female. Not sure why so much anger about the question being asked in that case.

ShootyMcShootyface 01 November 19 09:43

It is no more possible to 'get someone pregnant' than it is for someone to 'get themselves pregnant'.

....

... sorry, whut? 

As down as I am with the 32 genders, I'm not sure anyone has achieved the heights of being self impregnating yet.

Or, to put it another way: What the actual fuck are you talking about?

(Also, can we move this to the discussion board, maybe?)

Anonymous 01 November 19 09:45

Someone's touched a nerve here. The whole thing gets shrouded in mystery by partners being shuffled quietly out of the door.  The problem with "consensual" is that where it is senior/junior, it also includes "the only way to progress your career" and "you made a mistake, but we can overlook it if you do this".

Lydia 01 November 19 10:00

I know a lot of men think many accusations are false and that women deliberately make things up but in the work context very few women want to cause a fuss and only a small proportion of offences are reported. I think in most of these cases, some of which include repeat offender sex pests in firms it is more likely than not the accusations are true. There is rarely an incentive for female lawyers to make these things up.

Anonymous 01 November 19 10:00

"It is no more possible to 'get someone pregnant' than it is for someone to 'get themselves pregnant'"

 

Er, I hate to break it to you...

Whydooldmarriedmenthinktheyaredesirabletoyoungwomen 01 November 19 10:13

I bet all three of them are Conservative Party members and voted Brexit. Dirty old sods!

Anonymous 01 November 19 11:23

There seems to be much confusion over the comment at 8.55. The point is that 'getting someone pregnant' makes the woman sound like an object, as does 'got herself pregnant'.

Anonymous 01 November 19 11:35

Agreed, 9.45, the mystery looks the accusations look dodgy. The problem is that senior/junior relationships can very often be (and mostly are) consensual, it would be a mistake to assume they're not. The 'only way to progress your career' thing is very uncommon, particularly in the professions.

ShootyMcShootyface 01 November 19 11:36

Heh. Good one, Julius. 

You clearly have a very bleak sense of humour. I applaud that.

SRA, indeed.

*chuckle*

Anonymous 01 November 19 11:54

Why are ROF just allowing that same user above to post the same spam over and over again?

07.29

07.52

08.35

08.46

08.53 etc etc etc 

Anonymous 01 November 19 11:55

There seems to be much confusion over the comment at 8.55. The point is that 'getting someone pregnant' makes the woman sound like an object, as does 'got herself pregnant'.

If you're the OP of the confusion-causing comment, then thanks for clarifying - but hopefully you can see why it caused so much confusion?  That didn't come through at all from what you said!

Also, I disagree - I don't think it's objectifying to say "get someone pregnant", any more than it's objectifying to say "give someone a haircut".  (Some of my haircuts have been almost as life-changing, and not in a good way.)  But I'm not a woman, so maybe I'm wrong on that.  Seems a bit wannabe-woke to call it out as a choice of words, either way, tbh.

 

Anonymous 01 November 19 12:10

11.54 - please explain in detail which comments you think are spam and why, highlighting why you don't just think they're spam because you disagree with them. Otherwise it just sounds as if you're making false allegations.

Anonymous 01 November 19 12:35

@11.55 - I can see why it caused confusion, it was mostly because of people looking for offense.

If the explanation didn't come through to you and you misunderstood then that's fine, no need to make excuses.

It's also fine to disagree, indeed I disagree that saying 'getting someone pregnant' is the same as saying 'give someone a haircut', but we're all entitled to our opinion.

It's a strange comment to single out for 'wannabe-wokeness', given some of the other comments though, and does look rather as if you're annoyed that you misunderstood the comment and are being overly critical of it as a result.

Anonymous 01 November 19 13:20

@12.35:

Hard to believe, I know, but not everyone goes looking for - or trying to cause - offence in niche internet comments sections.  Eye of the beholder, maybe?  Can't speak for anyone else, but I just didn't get the point you were apparently trying to make.  The fact that I wasn't alone in that suggests that maybe, just maybe, it's because you weren't very clear, rather than everyone being out to deliberately misconstrue you, you poor little thing, you.

But I do go looking for minor spelling errors because I'm a small excuse for a human being, and "offence" is spelled with a "c" when it's a noun.  Cheer up - could happen to anyone. Wouldn't want you to be annoyed that you misunderstood the English language and be overly critical as a result or anything - because apparently some people care enough about this nonsense to do that...

On the plus side, fame beckons for you on Dave Gorman's next "Found Poem" - keep up the good work!

Anonymous 01 November 19 13:27

The number of false accusations are vast Lydia, and the majority of complaints will have an element of exaggeration, that's only natural. Allegations which aren't complained about can't rightly be described as 'offences' if they haven't been investigated or proven. As for motives, there can be many - desire for money from a payout from the employer, desire for attention, professional or other jealousy, anti-male bias, malice, mental illness, general unhappiness to name but a few. That is not say all complaints are false, but many are.

Anonymous 01 November 19 14:14

Apparently Mr Evidence's requirements for evidence don't apply to his own claims.

Anonymous 01 November 19 14:20

Anonymous @13.20 - I'm not offended by your misunderstanding, I've moved on from it - you should too.

What's a Dave Gorman?

JimmyPopDumbGuy 01 November 19 14:26

I guess it is only "MALE partners accused of misbehaviour" that are being ushered out.  The rest can stay ...

Anonymous 01 November 19 15:11

Ah, so evidence is important, 14.14.

Orwell has provided the evidence to support the claims that there are a large number of false accusations.

Anonymous 01 November 19 15:20

Is there any evidence that the Jones Day partner was sacked for misconduct rather than chose to leave of his own accord for reasons unconnected to misconduct?

Anonymous 01 November 19 15:45

"anti-male bias" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, because that's something that exists...

Anti-unicorn bias is also a massive problem.

 

Anonymous 01 November 19 15:57

"Orwell has provided the evidence to support the claims that there are a large number of false accusations."

Er, how?

Anonymous 01 November 19 15:59

"The number of false accusations are vast Lydia, and the majority of complaints will have an element of exaggeration, that's only natural"

Projecting much?

 

Orwell 01 November 19 16:19

Mr Evidence, I've made no claims about sexual misconduct by anyone - false or true.  So what's the other "evidence" you have to support your claims?

Anonymous 01 November 19 18:41

Was the 'newly wed female associate' sacked as well or is the moral judgement from on high reserved only for males?

Sir Enid 01 November 19 18:55

Capsticks are the SRAs panel firm and have close ties to senior directors of the SRA. One therefore would assume they have self reported this. If in the highly unlikely scenario ( I say unlikely as SRA have history of finding no case to answer against their own) they did prosecute the Partner in question then who would conduct such prosecution? Perhaps they should have considered this before burning bridges by choosing a second rate regulatory firm.

Billy Bumfluff 01 November 19 21:35

Why do any of you bother trying to answer the sea lion?  They can never be satisfied.  That's their defining characteristic.  The only way of dealing with them is to ignore them or, on another platform, block them.

Anonymous 01 November 19 22:21

I hear this a lot, but can't manage any Partner will get an Associate pregnant to be honest.

Anonymous 02 November 19 00:15

Ah, so evidence is important after all Orwell.

You have made comments related to allegations of sexual misconduct. Some of the accusations you made were false. The comment at 16.19 saying no accusations were made is a false allegation. Some other comments by other commenters are false accusations - these are other evidence.

Anonymous 02 November 19 07:46

This article covers some of it:  http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/article-details/is-an-employer-entitled-to-dismiss-an-employee-based-on-a-third-partys-allegations-alone

Anonymous 02 November 19 08:05

1st @ 19.07 - what was true of the Addleshaw Goddard partner - was it the bullying, harassment, maternity or pregnancy discrimination claims? What was he actually accused of doing and how do you know it was true?

Anonymous 02 November 19 08:33

Silly Billy Bumfluff has just discovered the word sealion. They think they're cool using their new word in every comment they make, even though they haven't quite got to grips with what it means and even though everyone else new the word ages ago.

They don't know what the allegations are in these cases, nor what evidence there is to support them, but they're think that the allegations might not be true, so don't want too many questions asked. Their approach, as with every other argument they're losing, is to want to ignore or block the person they disagree with. They don't realise that their actions only serve to make the allegations more doubtful.

Orwell 02 November 19 13:13

Ah, so you're a bit hard of thinking then. I'll spell it out a bit more clearly for you.

Questioning you = questioning you

Questioning you =/= making a claim about sexual misconduct

HTH.

Orwell 02 November 19 13:17

Sorry, I missed a bit of your lack of comprehension, so also:

Me saying I have made no claims about sexual misconduct = me saying I have made no claims about sexual misconduct

Me saying I have made no claims about sexual misconduct =/= me saying no claims have been made about sexual misconduct

HTH

Orwell 02 November 19 13:19

@BBB - TBH, I reckon its just Jamie trolling. No-one is that stupid, not even Traums.

Anonymous 03 November 19 10:13

What were the allegations of sexual harassment for which the Jones Day partner was suspended earlier this year? Why was he suspended?

Anonymous 03 November 19 14:15

Thanks Orwell for the further evidence of the high instance of false accusations in matters related to sexual misconduct.

HTH

Billy Bumfluff 03 November 19 15:17

There's something very sad about this exchange but perhaps the saddest thing of all is that people are engaging in it.

Anonymous 03 November 19 17:18

The HR magazine article was very relevant - in particular the bit about the importance of substantiating allegations.

Anonymous 03 November 19 21:00

Jones Day say the US claimants made up the complaints because they weren't good at their jobs among other reasons.

Anonymous 04 November 19 11:16

"There's something very sad about this exchange but perhaps the saddest thing of all is that people are engaging in it".

Says Billy Bumfluff as he engages in it.

Seriously not convinced 04 November 19 11:48

The Jonesday partner that everyone is talking about in my opinion was one of the better most open partners there.  Everyone knows the Jonesday culture and if offered on a plate after a drunken night out so what.  Lawyers are only human after all.  The biggest sleeve ball Iof the firm is [redacted by rof] who would throw anyone under the bus to further his allegiance to Brogan.  When he was unwell a few years back his in crowd of partners could not wait to stab him in the back and take his crown.  The partner in question here remained loyal and impartial.  Goodbye John, yet another friend you have shafted

Anonymous 04 November 19 22:49

The other Freshfields lawyer also had sexual contact with Ryan Beckwith, yet the SRA didn't contend that she brought the profession into disrepute.

Anonymous 07 November 19 11:40

It is 'inappropriate conduct' to accuse someone of 'inappropriate conduct' without saying what the 'inappropriate conduct' is.