Reed Smith has fired a partner for sexual harassment.

RollOnFriday understands that the partner, who worked in the firm's London office, was found to have sexually harassed a female trainee many years his junior. The nature of the harassment is unclear.

In a statement a Reed Smith spokesman told RollOnFriday that the firm took "swift and appropriate action" as soon as it became aware of "the incident". Confirming that the "individual concerned" has left Reed Smith, he said that "the safety and well-being of all of our colleagues matter greatly to us, and we are committed to providing a positive and professional workplace for all our people”. 



Reed Smith's action is the latest example of a law firm taking the inappropriate behaviour of its UK partners extremely seriously in the metoo era. Earlier this year RollOnFriday revealed that Dentons had suspended and then booted a partner after a sex act probe, that Clyde & Co had axed a partner for pressuring associates to accompany him to strip clubs, and that the victim of a senior Baker McKenzie partner was persuaded to enter into a non-disclosure agreement after he assaulted her in a hotel room. He subsequently left the firm, which undertook a root and branch review of its policies as a result of the story.

Clearly a lot of partners will have left Reed Smith for entirely legitimate reasons. Reed Smith declined to tell RollOnFriday whether it reported the one who exited under a cloud to the SRA.

Tip Off ROF


Anonymous 23 November 18 11:41

@3...2...1... - thanks for the warm up act. Yes, as was apparent to you, we would need evidence in order to know whether sexual harassment occured.

Anonymous 23 November 18 13:16

Why is the photo provided only of women celebrating? Are you implying something about the overall culture at Reed Smith?

Anonymous 23 November 18 15:27

@ Mr Evidence - "We" don't need anything. We are not the ones in a position to determine the matter. It is absurd to suggest that Reed Smith would simply fire a partner without good reasons for doing so. The firm was clearly satisfied that sexual harassment occurred. "We" need to accept the facts and move on.

Ye gads 23 November 18 15:55

Unfortunately the pic of women celebrating is probably way off - most likely generated an eye-roll, a sigh and then on with work. Because this person will probably pop up somewhere else and do the same thing to other women.

Anonymous 23 November 18 16:02

"What was the sexual harassment the partner was accused of?"



"The nature of the harassment is unclear".


What part of this are you not getting?


Anonymous 23 November 18 16:08

@No Evidence - We need evidence in order to know whether sexual harassment occured, otherwise as you say, we're not in a position to determine the matter, much less 'accept facts'. Here, we don't even know what was alleged, nevermind what the evidence was. It would be absurd to assume that sexual harassment occured at this stage before moving on.

Anonymous 23 November 18 16:14

@not getting - hence the question - one would hardly ask if it wasn't unclear! Which part of this are you not getting?

Anonymous 23 November 18 16:20

Well done for spectacularly missing a very simple point. We are not the judge in this matter. The 'judges' at Reid Smith will have considered the evidence, and have made their decision. It would be far more absurd to assume that sexual harassment did not take place, given the penalty Reid Smith saw fit to hand out (which is very likely against the firm's own interests).

Do you disbelieve everything you ever hear in the world before the hard evidence is placed before you? Or is it only matters involving women's rights? I would rather suspect the latter...

Ye gads 23 November 18 16:40

@Mr Evidence - do you need evidence to believe everything you read on this site or just stories about men being d*cks?

Anonymous 23 November 18 16:57

Well done for spectacularly missing a very simple point. We are not the judges of fact here. The 'judges' at Reid Smith have considered the evidence. It would be absurd to suggest that sexual harassment did not occur given the action they saw fit to take (which was very likely to be against the firm's own interests).

Do you always demand to see hard evidence of everything you hear? Or only where it pertains to women's rights? I would suspect the latter...


Anonymous 23 November 18 17:18

@Ye gads - not everything, just where there is no evidence. We don't know if this is a story about men being d*cks.

Ye gads 23 November 18 18:02

I’m just wondering when we’ll see evidence if the other stories on this site because apparently nothing is believable without EVIDENCE! For example, can we really just take the widow’s word for it that her husband shot himself at work? Yeah, that would be tactless and bitter but here that’s clearly ok. Someone was assaulted in this case, just *try* for once Mr Evidence seeing it from that point of view.

Anonymous 23 November 18 20:21

@Ye gads - you've just shown why we need evidence in cases like this. Here, there is no evidence and we don't know what the alleged 'sexual harassmment' was. There was no allegation of assault, yet you've falsely claimed there was an assault. Lack of details and stories without evidence lead to false allegations. Not wanting people to question the evidence sounds like not wanting to hear too much in case the story is not as alleged. And while I know you are not doubting the suicide story, to compare that case with asking for evidence in this one shows a lack of judgement.

Anonymous 23 November 18 23:50

BTW, Mr Evidence, FAOD these are all different people having a go at you.  Just in case you want to scream yet again about supposed fake "likes".


Anonymous 23 November 18 23:54

@Missing simple points - no, I'm not missing anything. Its not that its not our place to judge, its that we can't judge from the information available. Its absurd to say that sexual harassment took place without evidence and without knowing what the 'sexual harassment' allegation was. Not sure why you argue that if someone was sacked for sexual harassment it would be against the firm's interests. We don't know if these allegations have anything to do with womens' rights. There seems to be a common theme of you making accusations against men without knowing the facts. And its Reed Smith not Reid Smith. You're not really one for detail, are you?

Anonymous 23 November 18 23:57

@missing simple points - your comment wasn't very good the first time, you didn't need to post it twice!

Anonymous 24 November 18 09:51

Indeed Grant, although Mr Evidence only applies that view to stories of sexual harassment of women. But it's very important that we're particularly careful to expect higher standards of disclosure in those cases - after all, the men in question are a vulnerable group who need extra protection.

Anonymous 24 November 18 10:37

@Grant Holt - excellent point Grant, very well made. It would indeed be strange to assume something happened when there is no evidence. Stranger still, perhaps,to blindly believe something when there is no evidence. Truth is we just don't know.

Anonymous 24 November 18 10:43

@FAOD - since two of the comments posted are exactly the same and another two are by someone with the same username, any allegation that the comments are all from different people would be a false allegation. That's why allegations need to be clear and supported by evidence. Don't worry, fake likes and dislikes are very easy to spot!

Anonymous 24 November 18 11:09

Sorry about Mrs None, Grant - she just can't help making accusations when she doesn't know the facts - in reality she has no idea what people comment and don't comment on. She thinks asking for details of an allegation and evidence to support the allegation is the same as expecting 'higher standards of disclosure'. We don't know if this story relates to sexual harassment of women.

Anonymous 24 November 18 12:00

My dear boy, I realise the paranoia is strong with you, but you do understand that glitches can cause someone to think their post hasn't gone through and repost it, don't you?  

I assume you're not a lawyer to boot - otherwise you would appreciate the difference between "these are all different people having a go at you" and "every single post is from a different person".  

And, given your obsession with fraudulent liking to give the impression of greater support than really exists, I do so hope you haven't been liking your own posts...

Anonymous 24 November 18 12:04

I'm afraid you've demonstrated another reading comprehension fail there, Mr Evidence.  The clue that this story relates to the sexual harassment of women is in the term "female trainee".  

Anonymous 24 November 18 23:44

@My dear boy - yes, I know, you made a mistake and posted the same thing twice. And yes, you saying that these are all different people when they weren't was a false allegation, and yes, fake votes are easily spotted. Assuming things appears to be a habit of yours.

Anonymous 24 November 18 23:47

@Reading comprehension fail - we of course don't know if a female trainee was sexually harassed though. Looks like it was you who demonstrated a 'reading comprehension fail'!

Anonymous 26 November 18 20:02

Isn't it compulsory for firms to report sexual harassment complaints to the SRA, especially if they result in dismissal?

Anonymous 29 November 18 07:35

@Human - still more ironic is that your drawing attention to lack of evidence highlights that we don't know whether 'vexatious misogyny' occurred in this case.

*Eyeroll 07 December 18 16:40

Just sat here wondering if the day will ever come when a woman and/or her story isn't torn to shreds for even making an accusation. If she doesn't come forward? It didn't happen. If she does, it didn't happen. If someone investigates and finds there is no evidence, it didn't happen (shock horror, no evidence he put his hand up someone's skirt? Ye gods it must be a lie!) If she comes forward, someone investigates and says they believe it happened... well it didn't happen! Lord help her if she was wearing lacy underwear then those same people refusing to believe a fact without evidence will crawl into her head and drag consent out of it. *Sighs

Anonymous 19 January 19 08:42

Eyeroll, sighs - the problem is that didn't happen! Asking for details of an allegation, or evidence to support an accusation, aren't 'tearing someone to shreds', they're part of a fair process. If someone didn't come forward? It might have happened and might not. If they do come forward, it might have happened and might not. If someone investigates and finds there is no evidence, it might have happened and might not. If someone comes forward, someone investigates and says they believe it happened, it might have happened and might not. If they're wearing lacy underwear, it might have happened and might not. Not knowing whether something happened is not the same as saying it didn't happen or dragging consent out of a situation.

Related News