10 October 2018

A senior Slater and Gordon lawyer and his paralegal have been fired for repeatedly shagging in the firm's London office.

On one occasion a security guard doing his rounds heard the pair going at it hammer and tongs. When the lovers were interrupted during another knee-trembler by a junior staffer, the flustered head of department, whom RollOnFriday is not naming, asked to meet the employee privately later on to reach an understanding. Instead the junior went straight to HR.

Slater and Gordon started an investigation and discovered that the pair had not just been enjoying the unique frisson a work environment can lend to the pleasures of the flesh. It emerged that the senior lawyer used his position to extend other privileges to his lover which he had denied her fellow paralegals, including the right to work from home. 

"That doesn't sound like Robin Williams."


Both the partner and the paralegal were sacked in September. RollOnFriday is not naming the paralegal, who is now employed at another firm, but understands that she was also seeing another solicitor in a different team without either of the men knowing about the other.

A spokesman for S&G said "OMG you're not publishing this are you?". (Not really: they declined to comment.)

With late nights, close contact and shared emotional highs and lows, law firms have long been the Strictly Come Dancing of professional services. It's the story told by the dented files at Clifford Chance, the polished desk at Wilkie Farr and the smudged bonnet in a Magic Circle car park. At least it was consensual.

Tip Off ROF


Anonymous 12 Oct 18

I don't think the junior lawyer who went to HR emerges from this with much credit on the face of it.

ShootyMcShootyface 12 Oct 18

Nonny above: I dunno. Gotta know all the facts. Maybe it was well known, and he/ she/ xhe had no confidence that the Head of Department would do anything. Maybe they were sick of the perks that the paralegal got, had complained before, nothing was done, so they thought "Sod this, let's do it properly". Who knows? Not me. Not you. Would I have gone to HR? About the shagging? No. About the perks/ preferential treatment? Possibly, yes. 

Anyway, given turnover rates, a senior lawyer at Slater Gordon these days is, what, 3 - 4 years PQE?

Anonymous 12 Oct 18

Shooty, agree with you (I was the previous anonymous). On the face of it, it doesn't look good. If it was known and nothing was done, or if it was because of perks (assuming there were perks, and there is no evidence that there was), then it could possibly be justified in some circumstances.

ShootyMcShootyface 12 Oct 18

I'm glad we could have this discussion. Nice to meet you.

We can both be happy we weren't involved.  :)

Anonymous 12 Oct 18

Oh yeah - it’s the junior lawyer’s fault. He/she should have welcomed the opportunity to chat with partner, come to an ‘understanding’ and thereby ensure the partner maintained the ability to continue shagging around the office . Heaven forbid a partner be opened to scrutiny like they worked in a modern profession!

Solicitor who solicits 12 Oct 18

Hahaha. That made my day. Gonna check the facts with my friend at S&G London office. LOL

Holiday Banta, Esq. 12 Oct 18

"On one occasion a security guard doing his rounds heard the pair going at it hammer and tongs." LOL!

Feels 12 Oct 18

how the f**k can ya'll focus on the ethics of the snitch. Jesus f**king wept. Its a..supposedly professional environment. Good on the junior for calling it out. Not shagging in the office is one the basic fundamentals expected for most employees. 


Anonymous 12 Oct 18

@Oh Yeah and Snitch - of course the partner and paralegal having sex wasn't the fault of the junior lawyer (if there was a junior lawyer - see other comments), but depending on the circumstances (which we don't know all of), it could be that they don't emerge with much credit from the episode.

Former Lord Varys at S&G 12 Oct 18

I find this fairytale exhausting. The mechanics of this story seemingly change from person to person, it's like a game a Chinese Whispers between a room full of people with Altzheimers.

Tyrion - the real master of spies... 12 Oct 18

And yet @former lord Varys at S&G you must be the only person at S&G that isn’t fully aware of this .... need more little birds don’t you! 

MaccyD 12 Oct 18

Pretend how they like it was a partner with a junior member of staff f**king in the office. Allegedly she was sacked and if so should sue them to doomsday. Sooner this joke firm is put out of its misery the better.

getalife 12 Oct 18

Can you lot get a hold of yourselves and evaluate your life right now. It amazes me how you people actually care that much about other people’s lives than your own. Honestly just take a look at yourselves and focus on your own lives! So sad tbh and I feel sorry for yous.

Former Lord Varys at S&G 13 Oct 18

@Tyrion my dear diminutive friend, my birds across multiple departments of the office have provided me with several different stories. Emphasis on different and why I have concluded that it's nothing but a fairytale. If people wish to spread malicious rumours, the stories should be straight first. At this rate the most likely story appears to be that it was professor plum in the kitchen with the knife, or that there were 3 clowns, a sloth and a dwarf of noble stock shooting pheasants at a wall. Personally I believe the latter.

Anonymous 13 Oct 18

I’d forgotten how well written and funny ROF is.  At least compared to Legal Cheek. But what’s happened to Bonkers Websites?  I used to go there now and again just to re-read the feature on Bristol’s comedy Bud Fox and Gordon Gecko. If you’ve dropped the Bonkers Websites section, could you please just re-post that one for posterity. Ta.

Percy the pedestal in room basement 02 13 Oct 18

I wonder which new starter will end up with me and my sordid little secret?

Spare a thought........ 13 Oct 18

For the security guard. New ish to a job and dilligently carrying out his duty by reporting such an occurence which has unfortunately (for the two involved) been passed on. Why would he make up something like this? More curious is the refusal to believe it happened by former lord whatever, is there something to be gained by doubting the facts? 

Anonymous 14 Oct 18

@Spare a thought - I don't know what happened here but generally its a basic rule that just because one doesn't know why someone might make something up doesn't mean they didn't make it up. FLV says they doubt the facts because they've heard different versions, its not a 'refusal to believe'. Curious that given this you ask whether they have something to gain by doubting the facts.

Anonymous 14 Oct 18

I made the comment about the Bonkers Websites section...and now I’ve found it.  Good stuff.  Pleased to see it’s still a feature.

At the end of the day 14 Oct 18

the pair involved have already or will move onto bigger and better things at other respectable firms. Hopefully they will learn to conduct themselves more appropriately in future, not be arrogant and abuse positions of power or use their appearance to get the jump on fellow colleagues. Good luck to all involved, can the (meeting room) door now be closed on this sorry incident.

Anonymous 14 Oct 18

Supposed bonks here, not bonkers section I'm afraid, I can see how the two could be confused. Your quest continues.

Former Lord Varys at S&G 14 Oct 18

@Spare a Thought. There are facts and the comments of one person. To anyone that had worked with, or was adjacent to the affected parties, they would know that the relationship between them was never going to be anything sexual, at best, it may have been closer to familial. As I previously stated, I have heard multiple versions of this, from several people within the firm, accros multiple departments. And I'm just saying it is hard to believe a story that isn't consistent, and to that end I presume innocent until consistently guilty. If even 2 people from different departments gave me the same story (point-to-point detail) heck i'd even accept 1 or 2 differences - then I'd think about reconsidering my position. To the Anonymous that referred to your comments, I'd like to completely agree with them, and @spare a though, I pitch to you this hypothetical... You're in a new job, decide to ingratiate yourself with some of the staff by making up a story about a couple of members of staff, not knowing their standing, the situation escalates and you're called before HR fully aware that if the lie is exposed you'd lose your job. Do you then roll with the lie to save your job? or do you tell the truth and face the music?

Former Lord Varys at S&G 14 Oct 18

@anonymous. It'd take a little while to write them all out, but while some seem to follow a relative pattern, almost all of the actual details change. An example of this is: It was security guard A that caught them (been with the company for a while) It was security guard B that caught them (been with the company for a couple of months) It was an agency security guard (not really any previous affiliation) Or 1 went upstairs, 1 went down Both went upstairs Both went downstairs Or They entered the office together They entered seconds apart There was 5mins between entry Or there were multiple 'scenarios' about the mechanics of what was happening when they were caught - I'll keep this PG though

Anonymous 14 Oct 18

@At the end of the day - I think its a bit early to be closing doors. We don't know who conducted themselves inappropriately, is the sacked couple were arrogant, if anyone abused positions of power (not sure this has even been alleged before!), if anyone used their appearance to 'get the jump' on colleagues, or whether this episode has been driven at all by colleagues who were jealous about a relationship. I think it will be interesting to see where this story leads. 

I want the truth ..... you can’t handle the truth 14 Oct 18

Sinister elitist undertones displayed from all the doubters. Embarrassing and disturbing quite frankly the head in the sand refusal to even consider it happened. A real kick in the teeth for the working man who was just doing his job! Anyhoo they got the tin tack so it matters zero if hes made it up.

Anonymous 14 Oct 18

@"Sinister elitist undertones' - your problem is that you've lost objectivity to the extent that you regard anyone doubting or even questioning events as 'refusing to even consider it happened'. What is sinister is the sentiment 'they got the sack anyway so it doesn't matter if it was made up', which is unfortunately all too common the underlying reasons why people don't want allegations looked at too closely.

Anonymous 14 Oct 18

@FLV - what about the allegations of withholding privileges? Do you know if the partner who was sacked was in a position to do this, what the exact allegations were and what other privileges were allegedly withheld other than working from home?  Were the complaints about withholding privileges made before or after the sex allegations?

Former Lord Varys at S&G 15 Oct 18

@anonymous (there are too many anons, this is getting confusing!!) As far as I was made aware, the paralegal was granted that benefit of working from home on medical grounds, and that they were verified by doctor's note. I understand that the grounds of which were only known by the paralegal, the department head and 2 other members of staff (outside the team - for clerical reasons). I do not know what the medical grounds are and if I did, it would not be my place to say. Regarding the rejection of the privileges to other staff, I understand that another paralegal received ad-hoc privileges for "medical appointments" but was denied a permanent allowance on the grounds that it went against company policy (I tried this myself in the past and got shut down too - it was explained and I had no hard feelings about it), I also understand that one solicitor was denied, but I am unsure why, as there are several solicitors in the team that work from home frequently. So that point would be best explained by the head of the team.

Oh come on 15 Oct 18

No head of dept gets sacked without cause. Something must have happened and whatever it was, it caused someone to spill the beans to rollonfriday.  I don't see anyone actually denying the sacking. Someone is sitting at home reading this story hiding under their covers hoping it all goes away nice and quick.  Bad smells tend to linger. I suspect one of the problems is inappropriate people heading up teams due to possible recruitment issues at S&G. Just a thought. 

Anonymous 15 Oct 18

I work at the firm and know the people involved here. The article is pretty accurate. Partner/head of team "bonking" paralegal, who was also seeing another solicitor in the office (not common knowledge until now). They were caught "bonking" more than once in the office, an investigation was conducted and both were fired. The inside details of HR's investigation are not known, obviously, so there may be more to it. Both really nice people though.

Anonymous 15 Oct 18

@Oh come on - "No head of dept gets sacked without cause" - "oh come on" indeed! Its always a mistake (albeit a common one) to think that because someone is accused of something or because someone is fired or resigns that "something must have happened" to justify it. Nobody is denying the sacking and nobody said they were. What do you think the recruitment issues are?

Anonymous 15 Oct 18

What a load of waffle, i might just name all the parties involved and be done with all this bollocks...

Anonymous 15 Oct 18

For those claiming to know the facts because you work at the firm, unless you’ve heard it from the pair’s mouth, you really only know what has been said by others in the firm. No one knows anything, apart from the two involved who are being scrutinised over the internet! 

Oh come on 15 Oct 18

anon “oh come on”indeed!  I’m sure you have, by now, read the post above yours.  As for your last question, well I’m sure S&G are inundated with CVs from top lawyers.  Let’s hope so, they may then be able to replace all those that have jumped ship.  

Anonymous 15 Oct 18

@"I work at the firm" - how do you know its true that they were bonking? Asking because some other accounts cast some doubt on whether or not they were and there are suggestions that there may indeed be more too it. Although the details of the HR investigation isn't known, it seems that there may be some information which wasn't considered in the investigation. Surely only the people involved can know if bonking took place, or possibly the people who disturbed them (if they were disturbed).

Anonymous 16 Oct 18

@"Oh come on" - I did indeed see the comment you refer to, but what is the relevance to your points?

Oh come on 16 Oct 18

'I did indeed see' - To make it clear; the only assumption I made was that SOMETHING (no specifics) must have happened for two people to be sacked following an internal investigation.  Now, it may be a regular occurrence for two people to be sacked following internal investigations in your place of work for doing nothing, but I'd be so bold as to suggest that really doesn't happen in most places.   There appear to be a few colleagues that have confirmed something went on....I struggle to understand, why in the circumstances, an assumption that something went on, is such a problem to you? I am of course glad that it appears I have explained adequately the potential recruitment issues at S&G.  Always amazes me how comment boards always seem to have someone that never makes any assumptions, but clearly likes to read them. Good on you, you are quite unique.

Anonymous 16 Oct 18

@SOMETHING (no specifics) - as I say, its always a mistake (albeit a common one) to think that because someone is accused of something or because someone is fired or resigns that "something must have happened" to justify it. There's no getting away from that. Still don't get your point on the relevance of the recruitment issues.

Please note that comments are subject to moderation.