This claim is 100% true. I was a trainee at the time this happened. Some people chose not to qualify in this team for this reason. The chain of events which occurred shortly after this fiasco (which anyone at this firm will be familiar with) corroborate the story. The last time something similar happened here it made it to a well known City newspaper.
 

The SRA is not the barometer of truth. They’re too busy penalising stressed and depressed high street junior solicitors/trainees.

So Mr Evidence, you're admitting you have no evidence for your allegations! That's a first.

What's sauce for the goose etc.

Most of the allegations in the article turned out to be true because they are substantiated and when examined are shown to be true.

Handsy sounds like a solid chap.

@17.40 - it is for the person making the initial allegations to provide evidence. Where this is refused the only conclusion can be that the allegations are false.

@18.36 - the partner is starting to sound like the victim in all of this, yes.

Was the secretary a 10/10 ?

surely she must be in her late 20s early 30s? Do 30year old woman receive harassment by partners?

@17.57 - it is a false allegation that the allegations in the article were substantiated and turned out to be true. They were not substantiated and upon examination turned out not to be true.

Unfortunately, false allegations relating to sexual harassment are extremely common.

The source says the partner was drunk. But was the source drunk? And what about the secretary?

Why does the source feel that the partner's age is relevant? Why don't they mention whether the secretary was middle-aged? Or indeed whether the source was?

Jesus Christ who is this absolute numpty bleating that this never happened.

Go outside.

@Name, 15th @ 17.39 - thanks, would you mind answering the following:

1) Please provide details from beginning to end of the events from that you believe to be 100% true.

2) Was the partner banned from future Christmas parties, were future Christmas parties banned, or neither?

3) How many people chose not to qualify in the team and what were the precise reasons given?

4) What was the subsequent chain of events?

5) Please provide a link to the article in the 'well known City newspaper'.

6) It is an obligation to report such allegations to the SRA. Are you saying the firm didn't because it didn't think the SRA was capable of deciding whether or not tbe allegations were true?

It sounds like Lord Lester QC is alive and well and working at a law firm.

Leave it to me. I will offer peerages to the victims to try to silence them. 

@07.17 - what do you believe to have happened that you think they're a numpty for not believing, and why do you believe it? And why do you think the person not believing it is Jesus Christ?

Who rebuked the associates who spoke openly about the incident?

As a young female (single) who will be qualifying in her late 20s at biglaw ... should I be worried about potential sexual harassment

 age 29-33! Please thumbs up or down if it is common or I should be conscious that sexual harassment could potentially happen

@15.19 - Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.

@15.20 - agreed, the partner is looking like the victim in this. No need to offer him a peerage though.

@19:53 - feel free to sexually harass as much as you want. The reversal of roles would be welcomed. This is the type of "redressing the balance" we need!

How does the source know the PA was distressed?

Cautious anon 19:53

 whoever thumbs downed on the post asking whether this lady should be worried or conscious that sexual harrasment could “potentially happen” .... given how many claims there have been, why have you thumbs downed when this is clearly commonplace at big city law firms and can/has happened to women in their 30s ?

Christ these comments are depressing. We all know a Handsy and those of us with a clue know they'll do everything they can not to punish him. Those of you tripping over yourselves to provide free defence services for the guy in the comments, while people from the firm are all corroborating the story, may wish to have a think about why.

@Cautious anon - the biggest risk of 'sexual harassment' is the risk of being falsely accused of 'sexual harassment', but this happens more often to males. You might come under pressure to make false accusations of 'sexual harassment' though.

to Cautious anon 

Yes, this happens. Some firms and some teams are better than others. There is very little help but lots of lip service. It's gets better as you get more senior and better for those who have a demeanour that suggests they would slap them if someone tried it on. It shouldn't be like that but it is.

I hope more people would report it but honestly I probably wouldn't as regardless of the outcome of the complaint I think I would lose my job or be forced to quit. The comments above illustrate why I am still right to hold this view. 

@10.11 - yes, claims are common, and often these claims are a form of sexual harassment. The type of sexual harassment you refer to is uncommon, hence the thumbs-down votes.

@11.04 - although the allegations here come from a 'source' and not the person who was alleged to have been groped. The allegations are not true, nobody is suggesting the secretary lose their job or be forced to quit, so there is nothing from the comments to suggest that a genuine complainant would have to do either.

Cautious anon, you can see the prevalence of false and exaggerated allegations that previous comments allude to.

@10.19 - why do you find the comments 'depressing'? which partner(s)like this do you know?

The source says he was punished - are you saying this isn't true?

No comments defend him - which ones do you think are doing so? Nobody has corroborated the claims, in fact any questions about the claims have been ignored, effectively uncoroborrated. People saying that commenters are defending him or that the allegations have been corroborated might want to think about why.

It doesn't take Christ to work out that a lot more information is needed before these claims can be believed.

How could the partner 'repeatedly try to dance inappropriately' with the secretary if they were both sitting on a sofa?

@ 12:07

so you are saying that harassment of single women in their early 30s isn’t common at all in big city law firms... this is a bit ignorant to assume... sexual harassment is sexual harassment .... some women qualify in their early 30s and so are not very senior - of course there will be male colleagues or partners who will take advantage or potentially take advantage of the female being so young and early in their career even at 30!!

To be clear, my comments at 11:04 are made not with respect to the contents of this article but based on my and my colleagues experience. The allegations in this story may be true or may not be true - but the story strikes me as believable and not at all shocking which is telling in itself. The issue is not whether THIS happened or not (we don't even know who the people are or which firm) the issue that stuff like this still happens. 

Just to add, in my experience I have not seen once a false allegation of sexual harassment but have seen lots of instances of sequal harassment that wasn't reported. 

@ 09:55 - too bloody right!

@ 09:58 - too bloody right!

@ 10:19 - any old nutter can post here*, so I'd take anyone claiming to have any actual knowledge of these events with an enormous pinch of salt. Or do you think that's actually Lord Lester himself @18:36?

@11:04 - "those who have a demeanour that suggests they would slap them if someone tried it on". Marvellous! Me first. Anywhere below the waist is fine. But if you do go upstairs then just don't leave any marks that'll show in the morning. The safeword is: Constantinople.

@All Of You - what on earth is wrong with your lives that you've spent the weekend engaging in this rubbish chat? I'm embarrassed for you. I can't even tell who thinks they're trolling who any more, it's like watching two Alexas talk to each other on a loop.

Also, as a partner at the firm in question with personal knowledge of these events, I can verify that everyone at the Christmas party was so drunk that they passed out in a heap in the middle of the dancefloor at half past ten, then they slept there for a whole week marinating in each others drool and farts. It's true, you read it on the internet.

*your good self, for example.

@15.03 - sexual harassment happens, but its not that common. False accusations (a type of sexual harassment) also happen.

Remember, consensual sexual conversation or activity between two adults isn't sexual harassment or one person 'taking advantage' of the other even if you personally don't approve of it, and I think this is where a lot of the confusion arises. Women in their 20s and 30s are not children.

Anonymous 17 May 21 09:55: Lord Lester was not cleared of wrongdoing, whether by the BSB or at all.

If these allegations were true then the partner wouldn't still be there.

@15.11 - what were your and your colleagues' experiences?

The story here, as you say, may have been true and may not be true. It was both believable and non-believable. But subsequent questions and fact-finding, together with the response to comments, make it seem very unlikely to be true now. If a partner groped someone and all HR did was ban him from the Christmas party (no report to SRA (as required) or the police) then shocking would be an understatement.

It is of course important whether or not this happens- if not true it should be called out and if true it should be addressed. That stuff like this happens (sexual harassment and false accusations of sexual harassment) is another issue, although related.

You have seen false allegations of sexual harassment (if you've read the comments here then you certainly have). False allegations of sexual harassment are at least as common as sexual harassment itself. What are the instances of sexual harassment that you allege to have seen which weren't reported?

All the evidence points to Handsy's guilt. 

As someone familiar with these facts. What is lost is that some partners are too big to fail. 

Not true man. 

Thanks for the official line @06.43

Loosely drafted covenants. Tightly drafted NDAs.

18th @ 15.32 - we haven't seen any evidence. There isn't any. That points to the accusations being false.

18th @ 17.00 - what facts are you aware of?

If it was the case that HR investigated this, found it happened, and all they did was cancel the Christmas party, then the firm and all the partners would fail.

@13.50 - both the official and unofficial lines are that the allegations are untrue.

How was the source able to see the secretary's legs and bum?

@14:09, will this eat into the Permitted Press Coverage basket?

The allegations are true, as indicated by the evidence - of which there is a great deal.

The source is another partner who witnessed the event. Handsy has been reported to the SRA.

I trust the source has reported this to the police.

@15.55, of course not; he's a rainmaker, so benefits from the unrestricted press carve-out. Plus, it's a grower basket and he can benefit from the carry forward and carry-back annual unused amount.

Don’t get wound up by the lone commentator who is posting multiple times with questions. He tends to pop up on articles about harassment and engages in a type of trolling called sealioning:

“Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity. It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate".”

Not true man.

It really would not have made a difference if Handsy had been reported to the SRA - worst case, if he were struck off, he could just work with some of his PE mates or hang around the Ned

@16 at 1620-  Wish I could share the screenshots of my WhatsApps from the following day, which basically set out the above story. I guess in law school, we are always told to take contemporaneous notes... 

@17 @1220 - unfortunately ROF moderation likely wouldn’t let me post names of the key witnesses, or links to other stories about this firm that are in a similar vein. Have seen several comments from associates and trainees of this team throughout (including some of the seemingly cryptic ones) - believe the hype.

19 @ 1453 - this is only one of several similar incidents at the London office of this firm. I think the infamous vac schemer one is next in the series.

Anonymous 17 May 21 12:29: read the article. The dancing and sofa episodes were separate:

“He also repeatedly tried to dance with her inappropriately. At one point he had her isolated on the sofa and had his arm over her shoulder and his hand rested on her leg and thigh", said the source.”

@Sealion Man - I've always find it a bit of an odd debating tactic when people try to dodge questions by giving those questions an odd name in an effort to avoid answering them.

It's a very Internet thing to do, and I never understand why people who do it think it is likely to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with them. It reads as an effort to turn inwards to hide behind the approval those who are already on side, rather than an effort to turn outwards and actually win the argument.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I find the Question Man who posts here on sexual harassment threads a bit of an odd character - but you trying to duck his enquiries by waving them away as "Sealioning" doesn't suggest that he's in a position of weakness, but rather that he's in a position of strength and that you've run out of ideas to counter him.

He's clearly trying to make a point by asking, so just take it head on instead of replying with a catchphrase.

Just imagine trying to run your strategy in any real life scenario:

Officer: Where were you on the night of 12 July?

You: Er, well, you're just Wibblybipping.

Officer: Pardon me? Seriously though, where were you that night?

You:  This Wibblybipping is a bad-faith effort to harass me.

Officer: One last time, where were you on the night of the twelfth?

You: Stop Wibblybipping me!

Onlooker: ... sounds like an evasive wrong 'un to me (and/or mentally ill).

@20:03, I’ve now had the opportunity to review this. However, there was no defined term or cross term sheet check prior to signing. Additional interest costs were mistakenly introduced into the document which has negatively impacted the Permitted Payout basket. With the Permitted Payout basket fully flexed, the cross reference error erroneously switches off all of the unrestricteds. 

19th @ 14.09 - agreed, the allegations are not true.

19th @ 15.55 - agree with you there, the allegations are false.

@Grim - how was the other partner able to see the secretary's thighs and bum so well?

What did the SRA do?

19th @ 16.54 - there hasn't been any evidence, so the allegations are untrue.

What evidence do you think you've seen?

19 @ 20.03 - and of course the allegations aren't true.

@11.04 - sealion from 20.50 turns up on any thread to where questions are asked about somewhat dubious sexual harassment claims. There is more than one person asking questions. They've only recently discovered the word and think they're cool using it, but the term has been around for a long time.

What they're basically showing is that they know there is no evidence supporting the allegations and at worst that they don't believe the allegations themselves but want to shut down anyone who might cast doubt on them.

@2003 - strong sponsor, need to minimise the redline so we won’t be accepting any changes. Plus, not the first time additional interest costs have been mistakenly introduced - what’s an extra 1% on the LIBOR floor between friends.

@00.41 - are you sayinv he wasn't reported to the SRA? The firm has a duty to report allegations unless it believes them not to be true. So what you're saying is either they weren't reported to the firm or they were but the firm found them not to be true.

@01.15 - of course you can - I wish you would.

Otherwise you could always answer the original question.

@1.20, nobody is asking you to name key witnesses (even assuming there are any). What comments from associates and trainees? The questions were:

why do you find the comments 'depressing'? which partner(s)like this do you know?

The source says he was punished - are you saying this isn't true?

No comments defend him - which ones do you think are doing so? 

Malicious accusations won't achieve their aim and only make genuine victims less likely to be believed.

What were the other incidents 01.27? What was the infamous vac schemer incident?

Read the article 05.09, it claims the partner tried to dance inappropriately with the secretary while both were seated on a sofa:

"He was touching and groping her. He ran his hand on her thigh and bum area. He also brushed against her chest area. He also repeatedly tried to dance with her inappropriately. At one point he had her isolated on the sofa and had his arm over her shoulder and his hand rested on her leg and thigh", said the source."

@1144 @1249 - True, I think there's precedent for treating this as an error. Please write to the agent requesting a correction.

@11.44 - that is correct, these allegations were false.

If you read previous articles/reviews on the firm in question published by roll on friday, you will see that there are multiple references to trainees and associates sleeping with the partners/having relationships and alot of the comments and articles indicate many female trainee/associates at the firm in question are happy to participate in this culture... I'm not sure why the source is so taken aback when this seems normal and cultural to have happened at this firm... im going to assume a lot of infideltity too as some partners and associates will have spouses or in relationships...by the way this firm is not CC or Links.

Quotes from the FT - is that plagiarism?

@12.49 - yes, unfortunately its looking as if the allegation isn't true.

Anonymous 20 May 21 11:04:

This is how the conversation would go with the Sealion Man:

Officer: Where were you on the night of 12 July?

Sealion Man: Where were you on the night of 12 July? 

Officer: Pardon me? Seriously though, where were you that night?

You:  No: where were you? And are you actually here, asking me a question? How do you know you are not hallucinating?

Officer: One last time, where were you on the night of the twelfth?

You: Looks as though this questioning isn’t going well for you. Where were you that night? And how do you know you are not in fact an apple pie?

Onlooker: ... sounds like an evasive wrong 'un to me (and/or mentally ill).

Anonymous 20 May 21 14:36: the dancing and sofa groping were plainly separate incidents. 

Anonymous 20 May 21 12:32: why do you say you haven’t seen any evidence?

This debt sub-thread is golden.

If this is true - IF I say - then the firm is probably in greater trouble for not reporting to the SRA than the man himself if he's reached a settlement with the woman. 

@14.36 - you're right, in other words the allegations weren't true

@16.37 - which articles are you referring to? You know a lot if the allegations in tbe articles aren't true, right?

@16.38 - not plagiarism, but just be sure any allegations in the article are true. As you say, these ones aren't.

@17.44 -

This is how the conversation would go with the Sealion Man:

Officer: Where were you on the night of 12 July?

Sealion Man: Sealion! (nobody laughs)

Officer: Pardon me? Seriously though, where were you that night?

You:  Sealion! (a little bit quieter)

Officer: One last time, where were you on the night of the twelfth?

You: Sealion! (whispered, shuffles off)

Onlooker: ... sounds like an evasive wrong 'un to me (and/or mentally ill).

@17.49 - are you saying the allegation in the article that he was dancing inappropriately while sat on the sofa is false?

In what way was the dancing 'inappropriate'?

@17.51 - because we haven't seen any evidence.

What evidence do you think you've seen?

@14.36 This isn’t a manifest error and instead requires an aggressive call to lender’s counsel; they either fall in line or off the roster.
 

@19.38 Welcome. Security documents are a great way for newly qualified debt lawyers to develop. Please check the negative pledge doesn’t restrict our ability to upstream proceeds outside the Ned Group. Is there a floating charge over the animal print garments? Those assets need to be transferred to West End private member’s clubs without notice. 

@19.38 - yes, it shows how few people believe the allegations made by the source.

When was it reported to the SRA and what was the outcome?

What were the specific allegations relating to the 'roving hands on the dance floor, and which staff witnessed this?

This story isn't standing up well to fact-checking. Any questions or requests for substantiation have gone unanswered. There has been ample opportunity for the claim to be supported, yet nothing. All very telling.

@21.23

Spot on, the allegations aren't true.

Pleasure, glad you agree that the allegations aren't true.

To the single commenter who’s posting the anti-victim narrative / ‘don’t believe’ thread:

You do realise no matter how many times you post, everyone believes this story? This public perception is evident in the very first anti-victim post which has over 100 downvotes. You can comment the same diatribe 100 more times but that doesn’t change the fact that everyone believes this story. For heaven’s sake the poor PA was transferred into a different department on a different floor.
 

The fact you think the lack of SRA involvement is de facto evidence of your case is frankly precious. 

@2114 - you have missed the mark entirely - the FT speaks the truth. In the comments.

@2123: Oh, is that all it took for the cinema group? 

@2123: Have checked - floating charge doesn’t crystallise until a Declared Default is continuing. Is that okay? I think someone mentioned including something called a Permitted Override, what’s that?

@2134: Some of those that witnessed it have left; some are still in the team.

@21.57 - you're absolutely right. The allegations are hntrue, as the comments say.