Sounds like someone's headed for a virtual law firm, pending conclusion of the SRA investigation. 

“Some staff alleged that he still “poses a significant risk to young and unaware female colleagues”, and that the firm appeared “hesitant to push too hard as he is a well-regarded partner”

Translation: He makes us too much money to get rid of him.

SRA won’t be happy.  

 

You're a fully grown man. Offering people a scrap outside a school? Get a grip and keep off the drink, mate.

So is this where Mr ‘Y’ of WombleBondDick ended up working then (see related articles below)? Makes sense now as we all wondered where he went. Have to say the office parties haven’t been the same since he left. Roll on Linkalters Christmas party….. 

So the conclusion is that this partner is a continuing risk because they can’t behave themselves unless they don’t drink?  And the firm has decided to keep this partner?  What kind of message about values does this send  out?  And how will they enforce a no drink policy?  It’s virtually impossible.  As time goes by it becomes “well, ok, have just one” then “ok two is ok”  and then…. Are juniors supposed to inform if they see him drinking?  What about clients?  

The SRA take this kind of thing seriously.  If they fine or sanction the partner, or worse, will the firm still stand by him ?  What kind of message does that send?  

 

Cowardly leadership [...]

Why are you not naming him?! You name others for inappropriate conduct (see story on CAT judge). Why not him? Bad behaviour thrives on secrecy. Will anyone report this guy now, knowing he cannot be got rid of? What a message to send. Creep. 

Can a firm even ban you from drinking?

This oppression of men got Question Man thinking,

if you don't get hit on at a work event

then was your evening really well spent?

This dude rakes in millions, keeps the whole firm afloat,

nobody gonna can him for being a randy old goat!

His incredible effect on accounts receivable

means HR won't care if your story is believable.

They're running a business here, this is magic circle working,

they can't get that fussed about harmless flirting.

So let him slap as many bums as he likes,

without his cashflow you're all on your bikes!

Get his room number and send up a trainee,

send up an associate, pretend not to see,

at worst there will be a little light groping,

which is a small price to pay for that bonus you're hoping.

You know what they say? If you can't stand the heat,

then don't look so hot at the next firm retreat.

"So the conclusion is that this partner is a continuing risk because they can’t behave themselves unless they don’t drink? "

Isn't the conclusion that they aren't a risk while not drinking. So it's safe to keep them on provided that no drinking occurs?

Or is that not good enough because we won't be happy until someone's career is destroyed over a drunken misdemeanour?

"how will they enforce a no drink policy?  It’s virtually impossible"

Which is of course why firms all gave up on their 'No Cocaine' and 'No huffing Industrial Solvents' policies, because it was all just impossible to monitor and nobody knew how to do it. So this will be a real head scratcher for them.

In other words, get a grip. They'll enforce it like any other substance abuse policy in any other workplace. Go back to the Middle-Ages and stop trying to punish every moral indiscretion by putting somebody's head on a spike.

@0912 why would any reputable firm accept retaining someone who was a risk to females when drinking?  

Linklaters’ approach is truly...innovative. When you're hemorrhaging partners to the US, I suppose keeping a molester on staff seems like a necessary compromise. Meanwhile, at Addleshaw Goddard, we've found that maintaining basic professional standards means we don't have to rely on no-alcohol policies to prevent inappropriate behavior. But hey, whatever works for them.

Someone has gone barmy over a bit of unharmful bum rubbin’ at a firm retreat outside the office. 

“Am I going to your room tonight?” isn’t necessarily inappropriate. What if the partner wants to discuss billable matters with, or to provide mentoring to, the trainee?

If ROF would be kind enough to name him, then the ROF community at large can snitch if they see him with a pint... 

"why would any reputable firm accept retaining someone who was a risk to females when drinking? "

Because you're saying "risk" to try and make 'getting a bit horny and doing a couple of inappropriate things that deserved a stern warning but no more' sound really scary. 

There is a bit of a difference between that 'risk' and the risk of continuing to employ the Texas Chainsaw Murderer, you see.

Isn’t the ‘no more drinks’  ‘punishment’ a bit of an insult to injury? I thought the times where alcohol was regarded an excuse are well over.  So much for values… 

Anon @9am - the Wombles toucher wasn’t named either.  

The common element is that the law firm investigated & therefore presumably management has chosen to keep the partner’s identity under wraps. Perhaps WBD and Linklaters management ought to be criticised for allowing this individual / these individuals to have another opportunity to be creepy to staff at their next firm. 

However my overall view is that there are worse misdemeanours, such as  those seen during the Post Office scandal, where no action is taken by the relevant firms or the regulator. 

What was the charge, touching a buttock? A succulent trainee buttock? This is democracy manifest.

What a craven, pathetic response from Linklaters.  The guy should be sacked.  The fact that he was pissed at a work event should be an aggravating factor not an excuse.  

Once again, a partner gets a slap on the wrist for something that a lowly associate or trainee would get fired and castrated for...

I am sick to the back teeth of these stories.  Men with unwanted touching and approaches.  We are not in the 70s any more.  His feet should not touched the floor but money gets in the way.  I assume he's a decent rainmaker.  If a junior did this, or less, they'd be straight out the door to protect the firm's reputation and ensure the money keeps rolling in.  I've seen it in many firms I've worked in and dealt with.

They are sacrificing the respect of women on the altar of moulah.

0939

So the only risk that matters is the most serious?  Juniors should just suck up their concerns about a senior person who it is said is a risk unless he doesn’t drink?  Is that really the messaging over values that you think this firm is wanting to send?  

Sounds like you are bending over backwards to support and defend this behaviour or downplay it.  

Sounds a bit like "who you know not what you did" that counts here.  Didn't a guy at that hot bed of a firm Plexus [who?]  got canned by the firm and then SRA suspended for much less egregious behaviour whilst drunk at a party?  In that case despite that party being a drunken mess the firm turned on him as the guy was a mere associate with limited client pull.   

"So the only risk that matters is the most serious?"

Said absolutely nobody on the thread. Or ever.

"Juniors should just suck up their concerns about a senior person who it is said is a risk unless he doesn’t drink?"

The concerns raised by juniors (and others) have been considered and a sanction imposed.

Having your request for a public execution declined because a more proportionate sanction is appropriate is not the same thing as being told to 'suck it up'.

As an aside, the attitude of insisting that it's an insult if you aren't given everything you want simply because you asked for it comes across as a bit Spoiled Child.
 

"Is that really the messaging over values that you think this firm is wanting to send?"

I think it's quite a good look for a law firm to show that it understands the basic principles of justice and isn't a spineless jellyfish that will cravenly deliver whatever a mob demands of it. 

But clearly you'd prefer more stovepipe hats in the pamphlet.

Safe in your sexual GCHQ.

I'm trying to build up a picture
of her mental state.

For example, there's this organic bakery
she's been to this afternoon

and twice more this week.

I checked their Twitter
and their carrot cake just ran out.

The other day, she was in
and the same thing happened.

It could be a coincidence.

Did any male members of the team at this retreat report this incident or was it just left to the females?  It would be nice to see more men openly standing up to the lecherous and abusive minority in their ranks.

I always enjoyed indulging in unwanted sexual touching! 

@ chavvy landlord 

Given it was a work retreat, it plainly has a nexus to working life and the SRA have made it clear from other prosecutions and its guidance and enforcement strategy that this is not acceptable behaviour, and that seniority is an aggravating factor.   In any event they take into account behaviour out of work if it risks harming public trust and confidence or breaching other Principles. 

What will come out will be the other comments made by this individual (to which the article above refers) which if of a sexual nature may also constitute regulatory breaches.   

Look at the 2023 case of Daniel Hutchings, who was fined £30,000 for arguably less serious behaviour given he wasn’t a partner and the recipient wasn’t a junior in his firm. In  that case he put his arm round a female’s waist not bottom, and made various sexualised comments.   The fine was in proportionate to his means.  

The name of the partner will be made public when / if the SRA prosecute.  

When can I join Linklaters??!!

When HR / the firm's leadership decided that not taking action was enough; they clearly failed to think about:

1. how their tolerance of this kind of thing could be used against them in countless other future claims
2. how the partners and fee earners within the firm might feel about allowing a sexual predator being tolerated
3. how their clients might feel about a sexual predator being tolerated
4. how the SRA might feel about a sexual predator being tolerated. 

Can someone explain all this stuff about ladders? I've missed something.

Would be interested if Linklaters' decision would be different post-October when the Workers Rights Act comes into force. Would the action of banning this partner from drinking at work functions and giving him a written warning be enough to say they've taken "reasonable steps" to protect their staff from sexual harassment? 

they are advertising an in-house employment counsel role for 12 months, maternity cover apparently. 

It’s the same everywhere in the City. Zero tolerance policies come with a huge asterisk - you make us loads of cash do what you want. 

Pation.

For the inevitable law suit incoming. 

@ chavy landlord : “Am I going to your room tonight?” isn’t necessarily inappropriate. What if the partner wants to discuss billable matters with, or to provide mentoring to, the trainee?

If there had been a legitimate work query, or mentoring aspect, then why do it outside of standard working hours (even on a retreat, work doesn’t happen ‘at night’ after significant amounts of booze have been consumed)? And why do it in that individual’s private room? I would have thought the retreat venue would have had many much more suitable spaces available. Asking to go to someone else’s room at nighttime  is very unlikely to be for something appropriate. 

This keeps on happening there. Exact same fact pattern with [ ] a few years back. 

What would happen if someone named them in the comments here? Does ROF have to take it down immediately? I can’t see a way of Links finding out who it is if everything is anonymous 

Sounds like a crap Partner. Speaking of crap Partners, [ ] is currently on LinkedIn whinging that NQs are paid too much and that this somehow constitutes "exploiting NQs". I'll tell you what is pretty exploitive [. ], running your crappy law firm into the ground and then laying off a bunch of staff while you phoenix your way into a new business. Firing staff because you spent more time on LinkedIn than running your business is much more exploitive than paying staff heaps of money. 

What a marvellous message that sends to the wider firm and to those upcoming. 

This should be zero tolerance but of course they put money in their ears. 

I wonder how their said clients would feel about this?

@Anon 09 August 24 15:28

Oh my giddy aunt! Your comment seems prejudiced and carries a #metoo sentiment. People discuss matters privately due to a variety of reasons including confidentiality obligations, so discussing matters in one’s room is entirely appropriate. 

The incident wasn’t reported by the junior associate herself but by her nosy colleagues. The article didn’t indicate whether the junior associate felt sexually harassed by the partner’s behaviour. Therefore, no conclusion should be drawn about the partner. 

Anyone who slags the Partner off for being a diligent (but occasionally blotto) boss needs to take a chill pill and stop. 

In the 90s, that was a standard Friday night drinks.

@Chavvy landlord 09 August 24 09:36

A bit of late night mentoring". ??

Too funny.

This happens more frequently than one might expect at US firms. A male partner exposed himself at a work event and received no punishments despite complaints to talent management. In comparison, the unsavoury behaviour of Links’ partner wasn’t too egregious. 

@JimmyWalliams - why, what happened before?

@[email protected] - what do you suggest the punishment should be?

@[email protected] - in what regard?

Everyone seems to be up in arms, but a final warning seems appropriate based one instance of allegations.  If this happens again, he should be sacked - but destroying people's career and life at the first allegations seems excessive

But the SRA came down like a tonne of bricks on a Dentons associate for similar behaviour and is banned in England and wales unless he gets SRA approval. I don’t see any mention of the SRA in this article. One rule for partners and another for the rest of us. 

@[email protected] - why do you want him named?