Former TLT staffer banned for sending “inappropriate” items

_{The TLT investigation.}

A former TLT employee has been barred from the legal profession after he sent "inappropriate" items and messages to female junior staff.

John Enright worked as a facilities assistant in TLT's Manchester office from January 2019 to July 2024.

The firm investigated Enright over his conduct towards some of its junior, female employees, who did not work closely with Enright.

Over a period of three months, from February 2024, Enright had "identified and selected" the women "based upon a visual assessment of them in the workplace" and then "obtained items of an inappropriate nature" for them, the SRA stated in a published notice.

Enright claimed he'd received the items for free, but in fact he'd paid for them. The regulator doesn't specify what the items were, so it is unclear where they'd sit on the "inappropriate" scale, compared to unwanted gifts such as this, or this.

The facilities employee also contacted the women via TLT's internal messaging system and sent them inappropriate and unwanted messages. His behaviour caused the women to feel "increasingly uncomfortable".

However, the SRA noted that the women initially were reluctant to report Enright, as they had feelings of "isolation" and "intimidation", and were concerned that it could impact their careers and reputations, given their junior roles at the firm.

After the firm investigated the matters, "a clear pattern of sexually motivated conduct" emerged, "which was targeted at a particular type of employee".

When confronted by the firm, Enright initially denied obtaining the inappropriate items, but eventually admitted to it, when the firm seized evidence from his workstation.

The SRA stated that Enright's conduct made it undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice because it involved a clear and calculated pattern of behaviour; he had targeted females who were junior in status at the firm, and made them feel vulnerable and/or uncomfortable; and that his behaviour was "sexually motivated".

The regulator also noted that Enright had considered his actions to be "an alternative outlet to his previous problems with alcohol addiction."

The SRA stated that Enright had lacked integrity, and that there was a risk his behaviour could be repeated. It therefore made a section 43 order against him, which means he cannot be employed in the legal profession without the SRA's prior permission.

A TLT spokesperson said: “In 2024, when concerns were raised, we investigated, dismissed Mr Enright and notified the SRA.”

The RollOnFriday Newsletter

Comments

lol @ “based upon a visual assessment of them in the workplace”

Don't play carrot in the box with him

What were the items?

This guy has obviously behaved badly, but I do find it to be very strange that if you're a facilities manager at 95% of businesses you can do this sort of dodgy but non-criminal behaviour and face no sanction beyond being fired, but if you're a facilities manager at a law firm doing this sort of behaviour will effectively end your career permanently. I'd love to understand the philosophy behind this discrepancy.

The purpose of putting the facts in a decision/ judgement is to enable those reading it can understand the reasoning behind the decision. Oh well if the SRA says the items were inappropriate they must have been. A generic description would suffice eg a sex toy. The erratic decision making process of the SRA with no clear policies and procedures once again laid bare.

Pls never turn off anon comments like those losers at the Gazette

3 questions arise:

Were the items dildos?

Why were the victims intimidated/fearful of the impact on their careers to shop a facilities assistant? - it's not like he was the Managing Partner

Were the SRA annoyed that he only sent the items to hotties, and should he have sent them equally to munters?

(we are told that Enright had "identified and selected" the women "based upon a visual assessment of them in the workplace")

I demand answers...

""a clear pattern of sexually motivated conduct" emerged, "which was targeted at a particular type of employee"."

This is such a clumsy euphemism for 'he sent weird stuff to everyone in the building who had huge boobs'.

Let's all just be real with each other.

Anonymous 15 May 26 10:21 reporting anything/anyone to HR in a law firm can make them view you as a liability. No matter how justified the reports are

the words “mimsy” and “mealy mouthed” spring to mind - pathetic. I bet the jelly spined types who write such guff refer to their old granny as having “passed” - not wind, but when granny’s croaked.

Law firm HR (as a profession) too focused on the wrong things (totemic virtue signalling and equity partner protection) to ensure people like these (hot) junior females actually feel like they can report weird shit like Enright’s shenanigans.

So many details are missing from this story that it is hard to know if he has been unduly punished or if he really was pestering the ladies far too much.

What were the presents - this is probably the key issue are we talking mere chocolates with their implications of courtship or something truly inappropriate? How many ladies did he contact? What were the messages?

I didn’t realise that it all happened within three months which suggests an intense bout of activity. But the story is so vague it could have been just two ladies he contacted.

I’m gonna assume he never really spoke to them before contacting them on the messenger system and that was more the issue rather than the nature of the presents. I’m just getting that vibe from the story. It is a bit of a stretch by the sra to say he did not act with integrity by claiming to have got the presents for free. Well yeah, he would have sounded like a right weirdo if he said never spoke to you before but here’s a present I bought especially for you. He probably knew he was already on shaky ground. Lol

I suppose what I am getting at is it’s hard to know if he was a true inducer of discomfort or just a bit clumsy and made himself an easy target for mother hen.

As an aside I would advise that it is always better to talk to women in person. Your “visual assessment” and true motivations must remain unspoken. She knows anyway. Talk about anything else. Women are very good at giving off signals - that’s just the way the game is played. You pretend you really did want to tell her that joke or story or whatever and now it’s done it’s time to go. No one’s harmed.

Where this man may have had a problem is the ladies were not in the same department as him so it was hard to find the proximity and excuse to talk to them. They may also have felt he was not of sufficient social standing to be worthy of their interest. That’s where he would have had to get inventive whilst maintaining the pretence of spontaneity. Perhaps as an icebreaker a large wad of £50 notes could have fallen out of his pocket when they walked past.

Wonder what they would have done if he had been a top biller...

It is very worrying that the SRA did not provide specifics. How can deviants such as myself avoid making the unfortunate errors that Mr Enright made?

"Perhaps as an icebreaker a large wad of £50 notes could have fallen out of his pocket when they walked past."

Wait, what?!

When did we move on from accidentally dropping the pack of extra-large condoms while you were making tea in the kitchenette at the same time as them and then pretending to be mortally embarrassed when they saw what they were?

"Oh gosh Sandra, I'm so sorry that my weekend packet of supersize condoms for my enormous willy fell out of my pocket and into your cup-a-soup. How embarrassing! My apologies, I'm so mortified!" we all remember how it used to go.

Who keeps changing all the rules like this? Motherfucking DEI has a lot to answer for.

Wish someone at work would send me free sex toys

what bearing does the SRA have on this matter? As a facilities assistant, how is he regulated by them?

Was he actually sending them sex toys? That’s very odd behaviour and i could see why he’s been punished. But the report is very vague and unclear.

He had no sway over them career wise whatsoever. Modern young female lawyers must be a lot more timid and in need of chaperones than the ones I remember, who'd have marched into his office and force-fed the said items to him, with a casual laugh.

Message just in from Lord Lester: "I like John Enright!"

@16.28 - yes, that's because neither of you were found guilty of any wrongdoing whatsoever by the BSB!

Life is like a box or something.

Life is like a box of something.

@Anonymous 12.18 - do you mean the SRA, or the laydeez?

Anonymous 15 May 26 16:28 - yes, because you both behaved in a sexually inappropriate manner towards women! (And in your case, Lord Lester, the decision of the BSB did not interfere with the findings of the House of Lords that you had sexually harassed a woman and offered her a peerage in exchange for sex.)