One of Baker McKenzie’s most senior partners sexually assaulted one of his female associates. Bakers’ management paid her a substantial sum to hush her up, swept the matter under the carpet and denied that it had happened.
RollOnFriday is holding back a number of details – including the name of the perpetrator – so as not to risk identifying the victim. But after an event the partner invited several associates including the victim back to his hotel for drinks, following which he assaulted her. Insiders say that the assault was relatively minor. But it was sufficiently serious to the firm for management to agree that the associate would be paid a significant sum of money, would enter into a confidentiality agreement and would not return to work.
 |
How it might have looked |
The partner apparently offered to make a large donation to charity by way of atonement. It is not known whether this was accepted. But he remained at the firm and shortly afterwards was promoted.
This should have blown up over a year ago: RollOnFriday contacted Bakers to say that it had been told that a line in the firm’s accounts was a pay off to an associate after a senior partner sexually assaulted her. The firm maintained that it was down to restructuring costs in various departments. The lying liars.
A spokesman said, "We take any allegations of inappropriate behaviour or misconduct extremely seriously. This incident occurred several years ago and was reported by our HR team at the time. We treated the allegation very seriously and immediately carried out a thorough investigation, including obtaining both external and internal advice. On completion of the investigation, the Firm imposed sanctions on the partner concerned*. A confidential settlement was then reached with the employee, which we are not in a position to discuss to protect the interests of the employee. Our Code of Business Conduct reflects the values of our organisation, and we expect all of our people, whether partners or employees, to abide by the principles and standards of behaviour set out in that Code."
He said, "We are looking into all aspects of the 2016 enquiry from Roll On Friday to see if there are lessons that can be learned. Any suggestion however, that the Firm lied is inaccurate and something we refute."
*like promoting him.
Comments
What you are describing sounds sleazy and unpleasant, but asking someone if they want a shag, while clearly inappropriate in a work context is not a criminal offence (afaik)
The allegations described here sound like a criminal offence. It’s an order of magnitude greater
"Sexual assault takes many forms including attacks such as rape or attempted rape, as well as any unwanted sexual contact or threats. Usually a sexual assault occurs when someone touches any part of another person's body in a sexual way, even through clothes, without that person's consent"
So wide as to be meaningless. Did her try and rape her? Or did he touch her bum in an ill-fated and no doubt drunken attempt at flirtation? Is he a nasty sociopath with a track record of exploiting staff? Or the nicest partner in the world who made a single hapless misjudgement? We have no way of knowing.
So all these outraged demands from the mob (Name him! SRA him! Burn him!) are just silly. It is disappointing that so many lawyers are so engaged in such mindless pitchfork-waving.
Firms don’t normally pay settlements off the back of drunken flirtation
I wonder if the partners knew their profits were being siphoned off to silence an associate?
I'm really tired of people who excuse behaviour like this as "ill-fated" and/or "drunken attempt at flirtation". This is 2018 - who didn't get the memo that grabbing a woman's arse is not okay? Yes, of course, there is a scale of misbehaviour and this isn't on the same end as the most serious sexual assault. But that doesn't mean women should have to just shrug it off / chalk it up to someone misreading the situation. It's really, really unpleasant when it happens!
Four different law firms all had that one partner. Nothing ever gets done about it. Hopefully post Weinstien the tide might start changing.
Probably all the women that think it's perfectly ok to lift up my kilt to see if I'm wearing underwear. Can you imagine the hooha if a bloke were to lift up a woman's skirt to check the same? I'm not condoning the behaviour but I'm a bit tired of the double standards.
Also it is quite hard to judge it wthout knowing the facts - rape, presumably not as it says not serious. However it must have been fairly serious for her to be forced out of the firm!
No there isn't. She was sexually assaulted by her boss. That's all you need to know to judge that he deserves a pitchfork where the son doesn't shine.
And cretins like you that think he deserves protection because, apparently, there are some types of sexual assualt that are OK in this context, likewise deserve a prick.
Perhaps RoF might want to look at the accounts of other law firms who've made a point of condemning sexual harassment in print, to see if they protest too much.
However there were some pretty dark figures in senior management who really did try to do a Harvey Weinstein
Strike a managing partner off for not providing a safe and respectable working environment and attitudes will change very fast indeed....
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/14/us/firms-wake-up-to-the-problem-of-sex-harassment.html
as far as I know, the event was relatively minor - of course, no excuse for misbehaviour.
.... what I am nonetheless struggling with: why would a grown-up female associate go into a partner's hotel room in the first instance? hmmm .....