London Managing Partner cleared over drunken kiss with paralegal

_{Snogging Regulation Authority 0, Darren Roiser 1}

The former London Managing Partner of KWM has been cleared of kissing a paralegal without consent while they were both drunk.

Darren Roiser was prosecuted by the Solicitors Regulation Authority over a disputed kiss that took place on 15 October 2020.

Roiser organised a boozy night out the day before a Covid lockdown was imposed as a last minute celebration for five members of his disputes practice who hadn’t been able to make a team picnic earlier in the year.

Conceding that he “certainly spent more than other partners on entertainment”, he ordered drinks for the group which included espresso martinis, three bottle of wine and G&Ts.

When they moved on to the MNKY HSE in Mayfair for dinner, he ordered more wine, tequila shots, champagne, and a bottle that was accompanied with music, sparklers, and a procession of dancing staff.

“I was and remain quite shocked by the amount of alcohol consumed”, he later told the firm.

One team member described Roiser as “drunker than the rest of us”, saying that on a scale of 1 to 10 for intoxication, he was a “9.5 or a 10”.

“He was dancing, his eyes were glazed over, he was slurring his words and boisterous”, they said. Roiser put himself at a more conservative 7 out of 10, and said he was “reasonably drunk”.

‘Person A’, a 24-year-old female paralegal, alleged that she left the restaurant first and was waiting for the others in an alcove outside when Roiser joined her.

“He very suddenly grabbed both of my arms tightly with his hands between my elbows and shoulders, pushed me back against the wall, kissed me on my mouth and put his tongue in my mouth”, she alleged.

“When he kissed me, he did so with such force that I was pushed back up against the wall. The back of my head hit the wall”, she claimed.

Person A said she immediately pushed Roiser away and asked him words to the effect of, “what are you doing?”, to which he replied, “you are very attractive”.

Person A was "extremely intoxicated" herself, later describing herself as having been “blind drunk”.

The bouncers would not let her back in to the venue to retrieve her belongings because she was so inebriated, and after she shared a cab to the flat of a colleague, Person C, with another colleague, Person B, she repeatedly vomited over the sofa and herself.

Person B alleged that Person A told him inbetween throwing up in Person C's bathroom that Roiser had “made out with me”. However, when he met her three days later, she only had a recollection Roiser had behaved inappropriately and “couldn’t remember what had happened”.

“I then told her what she had told me in the bathroom at [Person C’s] house”, said Person B. “It was surprising to me that she didn’t have a stronger recollection. I think she said her impression was it made sense given how she was feeling, but that she had effectively blacked out and forgotten some of the details”.

Roiser’s defence argued that it was not credible that four years later Person A had developed a “clear recollection” of the incident.

In his closing submissions, Roiser's counsel also raised the possibility that Person B may have been in a relationship with Person A which influenced his testimony, as Person C's partner stated that she "heard what sounded like kissing noises from inside the bathroom".

Roiser denied grabbing Person A and claimed that in fact the paralegal followed him outside and kissed him, not the other way around.

The solicitor, who was 40 at the time, conceded that he kissed her back for a couple of seconds.

“I don’t know why I didn’t immediately jump backwards”, he said. “I realised it was obviously wrong and I should not be kissing Person A, and I should stop it immediately”.

Asked why he didn’t report the incident to the firm, not least to protect himself from any allegations, Roiser said it was “an embarrassing moment outside a bar when we were all drunk”, and that he didn’t want to cause Person A more embarrassment by escalating it. “I should have raised it”, he said.

Roiser didn’t tell his wife, either, “because I was embarrassed and ashamed”.

When Person A made a complaint to the firm, Roiser apologised after seeking advice from KWM's London General Counsel.

Roiser explained to the tribunal that he decided it was appropriate to say sorry even though he had not instigated the kiss, as “I shouldn’t have been that drunk. No-one should have been that drunk. I should have stepped away immediately”.

Clearing Roiser this week, the tribunal chastised him for organising such an alcohol-drenched evening.

It said his brief engagement in the kiss was also "inappropriate" given both his seniority in relation to Person A, and because he had procured an "excessive" amount of alcohol which facilitated her extreme intoxication. "He should have exercised control and better judgment", said the tribunal.

But it said the charges that he grabbed Person A's arms, held her against the wall, put his tongue in her mouth and called her attractive were not proven, nor had it been established that he instigated the kiss.

The tribunal ruled that no breaches had occurred and dismissed the case, describing the SRA's four year delay in bringing it as "unhelpful".

The RollOnFriday Newsletter

Comments

Ohdearhowsadnevermind

So basically his career has been ruined for half a decade at this point, seems to be a ghost on the internet but for this story.

And the SRA has a line up on its website saying: "On 15 October 2020 Mr Roiser engaged in inappropriate conduct towards a female colleague which included kissing her and commenting that she was very attractive." And yes, well aware it has a weasel sentence thereafter saying it's technically unproven at this stage and it being an allegation - to any layperson, it reads he did it.

The irony is I can bet you - because I've seen it before from the SRA - there is 100 times more lying about the 4 year delay than anything else here. The SDT are weak and the "unhelpful" comment speaks for itself.

Genuinely, if you work for the SRA you couldn't get a job anywhere else, no one respects you, and generally beyond reasonable doubt, you're also a POS. I'm sure people kill themselves over the way the bungle things, and those things turn into real life consequences eventually for the individuals at the SRA themselves.

Yet more evidence of the utter incompetence and lack of awareness or ability of the SRA to function properly as a Regulatory Body of a once-respected Profession. That is what this embarrassment of a story tells us.
Albeit confirming what most of us already knew.
Incompetence and seeming unawareness of the rules of Natural Justice and fairness (to both parties) writ large.

Lol@Person B getting his own tongue action in between Person A chunders.

Thank goodness that the SRA is all over and on top of crucial cases such as this, rather than wasting their time and my practising certificate fees on nonsense like preventing the next Axiom Ince or (even more pointlessly) properly investigating the current Axiom Ince.

One wonders if persons at the SRA are conducting litigation and whether that is why the SRA seems reticent to provide a full response to Mazur.

I think that point is far more interesting and relevant than a '2 adults drunken snog' non-story. How, exactly, is that a regulatory matter, was it ever explained?

It fair brings a lump to the throat. Only, not your lump, and in not your throat.

Chocolate Danish, anyone?

God forbid a white boy has a little motion

So this is what takes up valuable time at the SRA. As if we did not already know.

Well, good for them. Just as well it is on top of important matters like Axion Ince 0.2 (0.3, 0.4, 05, etc.,), and has swiftly dealt with Mazur.

Is this what happens when you have zero measurable objectives, or real accountability?

Have you signed the card?

'she "heard what sounded like kissing noises from inside the bathroom"

Surprised the SRA did not produce a squitters expert, to nail that to the mast.

The SRA - what total clowns

SRA is totally dysfunctional & needs to be extinguished. The entire enforcement system needs rewriting.

And how much did the SRA spend to unsuccessfully prosecute this complete non-issue? (Which, of course, we the profession are ultimately paying)

At the very most, this should have been a rebuke issued under the sra’s internal disciplinary powers. The fact that this ever went to the tribunal is appalling. I hope the guy is okay.

Snogging Regulatory Authority... lol

Sounds like the paralegal tried her chance to get a fat payout by taking advantage of her drunk boss. Remember, you can’t retroactively revoke consent…

Don't drink with work colleagues can be a very sensible rule.

Just so I am clear: the completely woke SRA has wasted five years and goodness knows how much money bringing an entirely pointless virtue-signalling prosecution and failed?

Right, okay. Got it. I am so glad that I am regulated by these clowns.

"if you work for the SRA you couldn't get a job anywhere else, no one respects you, and generally beyond reasonable doubt, you're also a POS"

Yeah, well, that's just like, uh, your opinion man.

See, this is why you don't try and bonk the hot young paralegals at work.

Save it for the married senior associates in early middle age who want to keep it on the DL from their husbands. It's much safer.

THESE ALLEGATIONS NEEDED TO BE BROUGHT TO THE HEARING FOR THE SAKE OF JUSTICE AND CORRECTION - THE WRONG RESULT WAS REACHED ULTIMATELY; REMEMBER JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE "PROVEN" DOESN'T MEAN HE DIDN'T DO THEM. HIS NAME IS OUT THERE FOR WOMEN EVERYWHERE TO KNOW WHAT A CRETIN HE IS. HONESTLY, WE SHOULD HAVE MORE MEN GOING BEFORE THE SDT ON THESE ISSUES; FIRST, EVEN IF WE SELECT 30% OF THE MALE PARTNERSHIP AT RANDOM TO PROSECUTE, WE MIGHT GET A FEW, SECOND, IT CLEARS THE WAY FOR PARTNER ROLES FOR WOMEN. FOR EVERYONE IN THE COMMENTS LIBELLING THE SRA, FOR EVERY MALE LIKE THIS ONE IT HAS TAKEN OUT OF THE LAW FIRM, IT HAS CREATED A JOB FOR A WOMAN TO DO - AND GIVEN THE HISTORICAL INEQUALITIES WHICH CAN NEVER BE CORRECTED, THAT'S A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION (ADDITIONALLY CAPS LOCK WON'T TURN OFF ON THIS LAPTOP AT THE MOMENT - PLEASE DO NOT ATTEMPT TO ASSUME IT IS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A TEMPORARY IT ISSUE).

Money well spent by the SRA yet again. Will they never learn?!

A legal career’s about words
Fictions precedents and manners observed
But for it to go well
Be sure not to tell
Words of endearment to any nice birds.

Interesting that this story does not appear in the Gazette, despite it being the official journal of record for the profession. Did the SRA lean on them not to publish anything about it?

I'm not saying that Question Man is always right...

Anon @ 09.15 I think that decidions are made with a game of paper scissor stone. I am being deadly serious. That’s the most likely scenario from what I can tell from a careful analysis of the evidence.

‘if you work for the SRA you couldn't get a job anywhere else, no one respects you, and generally beyond reasonable doubt, you're also a POS"

Whilst I agree the pos part I think there are a few LLP’s who would give someone a desk on the basis that it renders them bullett proof- friends in high places and all that. Hopefully this will change when the new CEO is instilled. Bye bye Paul it was the best of times etc etc etc

"Person A" is clearly a trouble maker and should be unmasked so that I know not to hire her.

It is well known that […] women in the workplace. I'm so glad that someone was brave enough to bring an allegation to the tribunal and that it was proven that he engaged in inappropriate sexually motivated conduct with a junior.

Save it for the married senior associates in early middle age

All that Peleton time and yoga - what's not to like

It all sounds like a waste of time and money but once she complained they had to look into it and not be seen to brush it under the carpet. They delays are BS though and that's totally down to the SRA.

Thing is, how many times do people have to be told not to get drunk at work, and a work party is not a party, it's work.

These are not your friends. A "work friend" = a colleague. Everything happens under work rules, not mate's rules.

Christmas is coming. Be careful out there people. Don't stay late. Don't have more than two drinks. If you can get away with it tell them you're on antibiotics and don't have any.

Christmas is coming.

The partners are getting ch**s.

Don't be the story people.

Don't end up in front of the SRA or on the ROF front page.

To those who watched the hearing, it appeared that, once the allegations had been dismissed, the parties spoke and agreed that neither of them would ask for costs. That meant that the profession was not told how much the SRA spent on this prosecution. Of course, there is nothing to stop anyone from asking the SRA how much it spent; but it will probably refuse to say.

The relevant events occurred five years ago. That level of delay - in prosecuting a case which involved a brief incident, no clients and no contemporaneous documents - is a disgrace. No one benefited, apart from the legal teams. The evidence was plainly not good/clear enough to merit a conviction and the SDT should have been much more critical of the delay. The oddity was that there was no CCTV footage of the incident, despite the fact that it took place right outside a club in the West End.

Meanwhile, the Gazette is reporting Pogust Goodhead's parent company PGMBM Ltd still hasn't filed its December 2023 accounts (those are now more than 12 months overdue) and PGMBM Law Ltd at the same date had £93m in net liabilities with material uncertainty flagged by its auditors.

Any sign of the SRA? No - too busy aggressively prosecuting minor HR incidents and no doubt will be deemed completely asleep at the wheel following PogHead's inevitable collapse!

I look forward to chipping into the Indemnity Fund, once again /s.

And by contrast, over at the BSB for a pretty serious case: Barrister sanctioned for cursing client and calling her 'decorative' - RollOnFriday

The woke take over of another regulator

Why can't the SRA focus on actual issues facing the profession - bankrupt firms, post office scandal, lack of class inclusion, mazar ruling, resi con factory farms, mental health crisis etc etc etc

Let the police do the criminal stuff and if someone gets done for a crime, just strike them off

Jesus Christ, the SRA is a disgrace

@11.32 - not just him - everyone knows that false allegations are very common when it comes to 'sexual harassment'.

@13:23

You have misread the article. He was NOT found to have engaged in "inappropriate sexually motivated conduct with a junior". It was the bird who snogged him.

Looks like someone from the SRA has been busy today downvoting all the negative comments about them.

Chastised for organising an alcohol fuelled evening. My, we are clutching our pearls, aren't we?

And meanwhile, the SRA does absolutely nothing about the Post Office lawyers...

Thankfully, everyone knows that false allegations are very uncommon when it comes to sexual harassment.

Acquittals like this mustn’t detract from when others, such as the egregious Lord Lester, were found to have committed sexual harassment.

But was Lord Lester ever found to have committed sexual harassment, I was sure that I had read that he was cleared of all wrongdoing by the BSB?

Which is the gold standard for legal regulators, as we all know.

@Anonymous 11 October 25 07:48: Lord Lester was not cleared by the BSB.

As ever, if you are a man in a law firm, NEVER be alone with a female colleague

Nothing positive can come from it

ESPECIALLY when drink is being consumed

Always have a witness with you

As ever, if you are a man in a law firm, NEVER be alone with a female colleague

Nothing positive can come from it

ESPECIALLY when drink is being consumed

Always have a witness with you

Or just don't be a dick

False allegations can be made against anyone

Remember the fieldfisher thing on rof recently?

Easily avoidable with witnesses

NEVER be alone

Kissing without consent is an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and could also constitute battery. So why couldn't the SRA act only after the conclusion of a criminal inquiry?