weincourt


The SRA has called off its case against the Allen & Overy partner involved in drawing up a gagging order on behalf of Harvey Weinstein, due to the solicitor's ill health.

Mark Mansell drafted the controversial clauses in 1998 after Zelda Perkins, one of the disgraced Hollywood mogul's personal assistants, accused Weinstein of sexually harassing her and attempting to rape a colleague. 

The NDA was onerous. It required Perkins to obtain a confidentiality agreement from any doctor she visited in connection with the incident. She was also forbidden from speaking about the incident even when required to do so by law or "where reasonably practicable in the case of any criminal legal process" without first giving Mansell at least 48 hours written notice.

Perkins said she was "broken" after several "incredibly distressing" and "intense" negotiation sessions at the firm's London office.  24 at the time, she said her grilling culminated in a 12-hour marathon which finished at 5am. “I was made to feel ashamed for disclosing his behaviour and assault", she said.

The SRA referred Mansell for prosecution in April 2019 after a parliamentary committee criticised the regulator in 2018 for its slow progress in the matter, although the SDT rejected Mansell’s suggestion that the prosecution was politically motivated.

But his hearing was delayed three times. Once in June 2019, then in December 2019 and again in March 2020. 

Now the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has decided to stay the proceedings due to Mansell's ill health. 

The former A&O partner made an application to dismiss the proceedings because there was no case to answer, but the SDT determined that there was a "real and legitimate public interest" in the case.

However, it did accept his application to stay the proceedings due to ill health, after medical experts instructed by both parties "substantially agreed" that a trial represented a "significant risk to Mr Mansell's life".

The tribunal said it was “of concern” that Mansell was too ill to undergo the rigours of a hearing or provide instructions, but continued to practise. However, as the risk to his life was "immediate and continuing", it decided it would not be proportionate to continue with the case.

Mansell's solicitors, Russell-Cooke, said in a statement on his behalf that the principles of Weinstein’s settlement deal with Perkins and another woman were agreed before Mansell was involved, and "he was brought in simply to document it, on the basis that the allegations were untrue". 

According to Mansell, he "did not propose the now-controversial wording” and “his position is that it came from [their] lawyers".


Take the RollOnFriday Firm of the Year 2021 Survey:

Tip Off ROF

Comments

Anon 15 January 21 09:08

I'm in no position to comment on the rights and wrongs of the case, or Mansell's illness, but I struggle to see how prosecuting a solicitor for something they drafted 22 years ago could ever be fair. Presumably any notes or records that he might want to rely on as part of his defence were destroyed years ago. 

Anonymous 15 January 21 09:20

Very sad to hear this. Presumably he is also stopping work at A&O, hard to see how he could carry on if he is in such ill health. 

impartial observer 15 January 21 09:23

Wasn't Ms Perkins represented at the time of these conversations? Shouldn't her solicitor also face similar scrutiny for being complicit in the NDA if the NDA is in fact contrary to Ms Perkins' interests?

The NDA has some pretty questionable clauses but the prosecution of Mansell looks like another hasty decision, perhaps indicative of  'need to be seen to be doing the right thing' attitude in light of the headlines at the time.

Anonymous 15 January 21 09:30

Is the SRA going to try to strike off every employment lawyer who drafted a confidentiality clause in a settlement agreement over 10 years ago where sexual impropriety was in issue? If so, then there good news is that there will be excellent career advancement opportunities as there are going to be a lot of vacancies in that area of law at a senior level.

Anonymous 15 January 21 09:53

9.20 - it sounds like the potential impact of a possibly unfair investigation into something from 22 years ago is the source if his ill-health. His job is likely a comfort and beneficial. Carrying on as normal in it is probably the best thing for him.

Anonymous 15 January 21 10:00

Impartial Observer has it right, this was always a farce and (yet again) the SRA should be ashamed of its role in it. It's another case of unfairly and disproportionately punishing an individual practitioner for the sake of making the SRA look morally virtuous.

I don't think that anyone would disagree that the NDA was unfair and Weinstein was an awful person, but trying to punish the solicitor he instructed to draw the document up was an abuse of process regardless of whether he was ill. All he had done was what any solicitor should do in drafting a document, tried to protect his client's interests. 

Perkins took legal advice of her own - and a big chunk of cash from Weinstein - then signed the document freely.

Sure, change your mind twenty years later and breach it when there's no chance of consequences. Nobody has a particular problem with that given Weinstein's conduct. But the SRA then trying to bang up the chap who wrote the document is outrageous. 

Anonymous 15 January 21 10:14

Errr, so he’s too ill to face a professional standards tribunal but ok to practice as a partner at one of the world’s pre-eminent law firms?

riiiiiiight

 

Anonymous 15 January 21 10:32

@10:14 - who cares?

He should still be practising and he should never have been bothered by this absurd pantomime in the first place. 

The only important fact is that the daft charges against him have gone away. Don't really care how he managed it.

Anonymous 15 January 21 10:39

10.14 - so according to you, anyone who suffers illness related to a particular event shouldn't be allowed to work. Err, indeed.

Anonymous 15 January 21 11:13

It was a badly drafted NDA, as many at the time were, and is clearly unenforceable (as shown by the fact that it was broken, the person breaking it kept the payout, and there was no enforcement). However, that doesn't make it right to single out one of the many people involved in its creation 22 years later. This was a decision made in different times, at the height of #Metoo hysteria, and post-Beckwith I suspect that the decision was taken to quietly drop this case.

What should be looked at the problem of NDAs signed much more recently where they've been entered into without proper advice, without adequate time to reflect, under duress, as a way to prevent whistleblowing, and where enforcement is threatened or even taken place (people have ended up being done for contempt of court and in prison in relation to broken NDAs). There's definitely a place for NDAs, in many cases (especially in relation to non-illegal sexual or 'harassment' allegations) they're the best way to draw a line under an event, but there is a danger of them being misused.

 

Mountain 15 January 21 11:52

There was a lot of ill-informed tabloid hysteria about this NDA. This article from SQB was well-argued https://media.squirepattonboggs.com/pdf/Labour-and-Employment/Confidentiality_Agreements_in_Harassment_Cases.pdf. I've only extracted a limited selection of points:

Allegations of harassment in workplaces around the world are rarely out of the headlines at the moment. It is timely, therefore, that a committee of MPs recently agreed to look into workplace harassment, and in particular the use of confidentiality wording in settlement agreements arising from harassment allegations. Critics allege, says the BBC News online, that such clauses are “abused by employers and legal experts to cover up wrongdoing” and used to “buy the silence of victims of harassment and assault”. There may well be pressure to make such provisions unenforceable or even unlawful. But would that actually be wise or helpful or desirable in any way? No one would condone deliberate harassment (and nothing here should be taken as doing so), but it seems that any such proposal would be based on a series of quite profound misapprehensions about the nature of harassment, the practical consequences of alleging it or have it alleged against you and the remedies for it available at law. In particular: [...]

  • Most harassment claims by themselves are worth very little – unless so serious as to constitute constructive dismissal, compensation will generally be limited to injured feelings, rarely a substantial sum
  • It is necessary to acknowledge that some allegations of harassment are factually wrong, whether as a result of genuine misunderstanding of the facts, nervous exaggeration or outright deceit and malice.
  • Not all severance payments are expressly or tacitly admissions of wrongdoing. Sometimes they are recognition of a less than perfect case, but equally they can be a reflection of the lost time, cost and stress of a protracted harassment claim or grievance and the knowledge for the business that any “acquittal” will never be as well publicised as the allegation. But why would an employer make a severance proposal aimed at avoiding all those things if it left the victim free to continue to talk about them anyway? The naivety of any suggestion that confidentiality clauses concerning harassment should be void is believing that employers will then still agree to make payments to complainants without legal obligation to do so.
  • Nobody can be forced into a settlement agreement. The whole point of the requirement to take independent legal advice is to avoid the risk of coercion or misrepresentation as to its terms.
  • Confidentiality agreements work both ways – bearing in mind the uncertainties noted above, they may also stop wrongly-accused managers from publicising the employer’s rejection of the complainant’s case or from belittling his or her allegations in the workplace.

Finally, I note that Zelda Perkins has made lots of very loud assertions, based upon her total life of experience of (a) no legal education; (b) no legal training; and (c) having signed a single NDA with professional legal advice, and receiving lots of money for having done so. The mere fact that 20 years ago someone signed a contract does not make their views on (a) contracts; (b) the law; or (c) public policy relevant.

Anon 15 January 21 11:53

@ 11:13. I don't think "times have changed" really works here. The provision requiring Ms Perkins to get her doctor to sign a confidentiality agreement is pretty far out, no matter when it was negotiated. Limiting someone's access to medical attention based on the doctor's willingness to sign what was no doubt another absurdly restrictive confidentiality agreement? Sounds to me like there is at least a case to answer there. 

Of course, it might just about be acceptable if Ms Perkins accepted a load more money in return for the inclusion of such a provision, but as has already been pointed out, any relevant evidence was almost certainly destroyed years ago. 

Anonymous 15 January 21 12:21

@11.53 - sorry, "times have changed" refers to the times of #Metoo hysteria and not the times of 22 years ago when the NDA was signed.

Paul 15 January 21 13:55

Meanwhile the SRA has updated the Code of Conduct to make it even more woolly and contradictory.  In the preamble they say "You must exercise your judgement in applying these standards".  What they mean is "You must predict our view of your conduct 22 years from now". 

Anonymous 15 January 21 14:04

Good to see A&O’s PR Agency earning their retainer on here.

The application to dismiss failed , it follows proceedings are considered to have some merit.

You may disagree, good for you, but it looks bad that the proceedings didn’t get dismissed.

Too ill to defend it? No problem 

Too ill to defend but well enough to practice ? Lol

Lol also if they think instructing clients won’t notice.

 

Anonymous 15 January 21 14:21

14.04 - looks more like a face saving way to stop meritless proceedings to me.

Good to see the SRA PR agency on here though.

Mountain 16 January 21 00:19

I’m all for holding people to account when justified , but this was a lynch mob. Mansell was targeted because the SRA are a bunch of ideological half-wits possessed by the malevolent - but slightly retarded - spirit of a far left social justice genie. Perkins, the woman whinging about the agreement which she chose to sign, with legal advice, in exchange for ££££, had her own lawyers. The SRA however gleefully jumped on the #MeToo bandwagon and apparently decided to try to ‘send a message’ and burnish their own credentials as the woke police.

I don’t know what the basis of this medical dismissal is, but given that the alternative application was to dismiss the allegations on grounds that there was no evidence, I very strongly suspect that the decision was made to do the former to say face.

The widely-held belief was that the prosecution was an ill-conceived witch hunt, so any a failure to dismiss the application on the grounds that there was no evidence would have been reviewable by the High Court, and would have succeeded. By instead dismissing on grounds of health, the SRA appears to have self-servingly picked an expedient option to avoid admitting its slack-jawed incompetence.

Charles Smithright 16 January 21 03:44

The SRA spends significant amounts of money for useless prosecutions under the false pretense of protecting the public. It happened 22 years ago and it would be nearly impossible for Mansell to defend himself. This prosecution would protect the public as much as a prosecution by the SRA of an overseas lawyer who commits an act abroad and has no contacts whatsoever with the UK. Move on and save public funds for matters of importance.

Anonymous 16 January 21 10:00

Oh look Mansell’s defenders are moving onto victim shaming #SorryNotSorry

Its almost as if #metoo passed them by

Soz about the failure to dismiss

The stain remains

No amount of self serving blathering ‘n scrubbing can remove it

The stay for ill health. whilst Mansell is allowed to practice, reflects as badly on the tribunal as it does A&O

Lie down with....

SRA is a joke 16 January 21 10:27

Are you kidding me? How is this protecting the public or protecting anyone? This was a witch hunt and the SRA should be ashamed. The SRA is not protecting the public nor is the SRA providing a service. 

Anonymous 16 January 21 13:57

10.00 - unfortunately #Metoo didn't pass by, it happened. This case was brought at the height of the witch-hunt and wouldnt be brought now. The SRA have extricated themselves from it, and there is no stain.

Anon 17 January 21 17:49

Anonymous 16 January 21:  #Metoo was an important thing and wasn't a witch-hunt. The case would still be brought now, and rightly so. The stain remains.

Ben 17 January 21 17:54

The matter was dropped because of the accused's ill health. The SRA would otherwise have proceeded. The merits of the matter have not been adjudicated upon. 

Anonymous 18 January 21 08:40

[email protected] - history is already judging #Metoo for the witch-hunt that it was. Thankfully, post-Beckwith, cases like this are being dropped and no longer brought. The only stain is on those who make judgements based on mere allegations.

Anonymous 18 January 21 09:35

Ben - the matter was dropped because post-Beckwith there is no way the SRA would have proceeded with such a claim. There is simply nothing to adjudicate.

Anon 18 January 21 15:11

Anonymous 18 January 21 08:40: history is not judging #Metoo as a witch-hunt or otherwise inappropriate. Thankfully, despite Beckwith, cases like this are still being pursued and brought. The case was only dropped here because of the accused's ill health, with the negative implications of that leaving a stain.

Anon 18 January 21 15:13

Anonymous 18 January 21 09:35: as the SDT themselves explained, the matter was dropped because Mansell was ill and not because of anything to do with the merits.

Anon who is too ill 18 January 21 16:26

If I'm ever brought in front of the regulator in my lowly role, I'll get medical evidence that there is a risk to life despite me continuing to work and more... 

Let's see if they accept that argument and if more people use it, or is it only accepted from top lawyers and their great legal teams. 

Anonymous 18 January 21 16:28

Anonoben @ 15.11 and 15.13 - history is judging #Metoo as a witch-hunt and otherwise inappropriate. Thankfully, due to Beckwith, cases like this are not being pursued and brought. The case was not dropped here because of the accused's ill health, and there were no negative implications leaving a stain.

As has been explained, the matter was not dropped because Mansell was ill but because of something to do with the merits.

uninterested party 19 January 21 08:08

"All he had done was what any solicitor should do in drafting a document, tried to protect his client's interests."

"Perkins took legal advice of her own - and a big chunk of cash from Weinstein - then signed the document freely."

Whether that was all he did, and whether she signed the document freely, is the point of an open legal process. Casting aspersions as the victim's lawyer's position is bizarre and unworthy; they are obviously unable to defend themselves in public because privilege, while Weinstein's lawyer can put out all the partial press releases they like.

The speculation about Mansell maybe having destroyed his notes is particularly interesting, as one of the allegations was that the victim's lawyer was obliged as part of the settlement to hand over his notes of the settlement meeting.   The interesting bit about document destruction is often when it happened.  If there were a destruction from firm records in accordance with retention policies I'm sure his firm would have records of this.  If the file wasn't kept in the firms records that raises its own issues.  At firms I've worked at document retention policies are six years from the end of the lifetime of the contract.  Wasn't the point that this NDA was still running at the time of the controversy?

The only way we can ever know what happened in the room is an open legal process. 

Anon 19 January 21 13:28

Anonymous 18 January 21 16:28: #Metoo was never a witch-hunt and is not seen as such: it was about ensuring that victims get justice by calling out behaviour which had previously been swept under the carpet. The Beckwith case was a mess-up by the SRA but it is good to see that prosecutions are still being brought to ensure that people are held to account. The Mansell case was discontinued, so there was no adjudication on the merits, and it was dropped because he claimed he was too ill to participate. Given that no findings were made either way on the merits, and that most people feel the illness excuse was a lame one (not least since he was continuing to work), there is an inevitable and rational feeling that he got away with it. So he does not leave the process unstained. The result is therefore bad for him and bad for the system.

 

Anonymous 19 January 21 14:26

Anon who is too ill - just what have you done which thinks you might be brought before the regulator???

You do understand that one thing can cause a person to be ill but that person may still be capable of working. In fact work is often the best antidote. Mental health training course for you I think!

Anonymous 19 January 21 17:15

13.28 - Anonymous 18 January 21 16:28: #Metoo was a witch-hunt and is seen as such: it was not about ensuring that victims get justice by calling out behaviour which had previously been swept under the carpet. The Beckwith case was a mess-up by the SRA and it is good to see that such mess-up prosecutions are no longer being brought, as shown by The Mansell case being discontinued, meaning there was nothing to adjudicate. It was not dropped because he claimed he was too ill to participate, but because the SRA is in the new post-Beckwith environment. Given that there was nothing to find on the merits, and that most people feel the illness excuse was a lame one, knowing that it was really because post-Beckwith the SRA isn't pursuing these claims anymore (his continuing to work not being relevant), there is an inevitable and rational feeling that the case shouldn't have been brought. So he leaves the process unstained while those accusing him baselessly don't. The result is therefore good for him and good for the system.

Anon 19 January 21 18:08

Anon 19 January 21 13:28: spot on. #Metoo redressed a culture of people getting away with disgraceful behaviour.

Wildoats 19 January 21 23:40

What Mansell did was wrong. 

It’s important the less qualified solicitors commenting on here understand that. 

The reasons why he did it are obvious and easily explained, reasoned and even defended. But none make what he did acceptable.

I have practiced for two decades. I’m ashamed at the attempts by some of you to defend Mansell. In time you will understand the law is not the be all and end all. Decency, honesty, probity and integrity are. 

 

Anonymous 20 January 21 07:18

19th @ 8.08 - we don't need to know what happened in the room as the prosecution has been stopped. It would be unfair of us to perpetrate gossip about it.

Asturias Es Mi Patria 20 January 21 12:17

Heh, when is the penny going to drop that the more    is posted about this shonky outcome then the more people are reminded of just how poorly the firm, the partner and the SRA come out of this.

Anonymous 20 January 21 15:35

Wildoats - you can't blame one person for bad practice which was widespread at the time. I am ashamed that you are ashamed of us who realise this. If you've practiced for two decades you'll know that NDAs of this type, while legally unenforceable, were widely used. Decency, honesty, probity and integrity are all important, as is fairness regardless of gender, and in time you will come to understand this.

Although there are still serious issues with NDAs being misused (and not just regarding sexual 'haraasment'), they do provide a valuable function in allowing parties to draw a line under a matter.

Anon 20 January 21 16:09

Anonymous 19 January 21 17:15: #Metoo was never a witch-hunt and is not seen as such: it was about ensuring that victims get justice by calling out behaviour which had previously been swept under the carpet. The Beckwith case was a mess-up by the SRA but it is good to see that prosecutions are still being brought to ensure that people are held to account. The Mansell case was discontinued, so there was no adjudication on the merits, and it was dropped because he claimed he was too ill to participate. Given that no findings were made either way on the merits, and that most people feel the illness excuse was a lame one (not least since he was continuing to work), there is an inevitable and rational feeling that he got away with it. So he does not leave the process unstained. The result is therefore bad for him and bad for the system.

Anon 20 January 21 16:20

#Metoo is one of the most important movements in modern times. Without it, all that dreadful behaviour which was formerly hidden away has been called out and redressed. As a result, behaviour has generally improved. The Beckwith matter was a mistake, but the SRA is continuing to prosecute cases which deserve it. The shame about the Mansell case is that it was simply abandoned by the SRA because he was ill. Even though he was well enough to continue working in a high pressure City job. Not only does that decision make no sense, but everyone is a loser. He does not get the clearance he might have had, because there was no decision on the merits, and therefore some mud will inevitably stick; and the system is made to look foolish. This is sad.

Anonymous 20 January 21 19:38

Asturias Es Mi Patria - if you read the comments they're mostly supportive of ghe prosecution being dropped (sorry, permanently stayed).

Anonymous 21 January 21 12:11

Anonymous 20 January 21 19:38: if you read the comments, they mostly do not support the permanent stay of the proceedings.

Anon 21 January 21 12:15

The comments and voting overwhelmingly speak with one voice: #metoo was a good thing; it was a bad thing for these proceedings to be stopped; and neither Mansell nor the system comes out well from it.

Anonymous 21 January 21 12:20

20th, 16.09 and 16.20:

#Metoo was a witch-hunt and is seen as such: it was not about ensuring that accusers get justice by making accusations of behaviour which had previously been swept under the carpet. The Beckwith case was a mess-up by the SRA and it is good to see that prosecutions are no longer being brought to ensure that people are held to account. The Mansell case was discontinued, so there was no adjudication on the merits, and it was dropped not because he claimed he was too ill to participate, but because post-Beckwith the SRA is no longer bringing this type of claim. Given that there were no findings to be made, and that most people don't feel the illness excuse was a lame one (his continuing to work being irrelevant), there is an inevitable and rational feeling that the SRA should never have brought this prosecution and dropped it at the first opportunity. So he leaves the process unstained while those who continue to accuse him don't. The result is therefore not bad for him and not bad for the system.

#Metoo is one of the most biggest witchunts in modern times. Without it, all those dreadful accusations which were formerly not made have been made. As a result, many innocent people have suffered. The Beckwith matter was a mistake, and as a result the SRA is not continuing to prosecute such cases which should never have been brought. The shame about the Mansell case is that it was ever brought by the SRA. The fact that he was well enough to continue working in City job is irrelevant to the strains caused by a witch-hunt. The decision to drop the prosecution made yes sense, but everyone is a loser as it should never have been brought. He gets clearance at least, because there was no decision to make, so no mud sticks, but will inevitably stick to those who continue to accuse him; and the system is made to look a little less foolish. This is happy.

Anon 21 January 21 13:02

Anonymous 21 January 21 12:20:

#Metoo was never a witch-hunt and is not seen as such: it was about ensuring that victims get justice by calling out behaviour which had previously been swept under the carpet. The Beckwith case was a mess-up by the SRA but it is good to see that prosecutions are still being brought to ensure that people are held to account. The Mansell case was discontinued, so there was no adjudication on the merits, and it was dropped because he claimed he was too ill to participate. Given that no findings were made either way on the merits, and that most people feel the illness excuse was a lame one (not least since he was continuing to work), there is an inevitable and rational feeling that he got away with it. So he does not leave the process unstained. The result is therefore bad for him and bad for the system.

#Metoo is one of the most important movements in modern times. Without it, all that dreadful behaviour which was formerly hidden away has been called out and redressed. As a result, behaviour has generally improved. The Beckwith matter was a mistake, but the SRA is continuing to prosecute cases which deserve it. The shame about the Mansell case is that it was simply abandoned by the SRA because he was ill. Even though he was well enough to continue working in a high pressure City job. Not only does that decision make no sense, but everyone is a loser. He does not get the clearance he might have had, because there was no decision on the merits, and therefore some mud will inevitably stick; and the system is made to look foolish. This is sad.

 

Anonymous 21 January 21 15:29

12.15 - that is a false accusation. Less than half of the comments mention #Metoo, certainly not the overwhelming majority. Much of the voting is multiple voting by the same people, so this can be disregarded. Unfortunately, false accusations are a common feature in matters relating to sexual harassment and have impacted the wider #Metoo movement.

False allegations regarding comments and votes have no bearing on Mansell or the system.

Jane 21 January 21 16:03

#Metoo was a watershed for women. It brought to the forefront of consideration what a lot of us had had to put up with for years: harassing behaviour from men which was ignored or tolerated - not because it wasn't unacceptable by prevailing standards, but due to a culture of not caring.

 

Anonymous 21 January 21 17:45

13.02:

#Metoo was a witch-hunt and is seen as such: it was not about ensuring that accusers get justice by making accusations of behaviour which had previously been swept under the carpet. The Beckwith case was a mess-up by the SRA and it is good to see that prosecutions are no longer being brought to ensure that people are held to account. The Mansell case was discontinued, so there was no adjudication on the merits, and it was dropped not because he claimed he was too ill to participate, but because post-Beckwith the SRA is no longer bringing this type of claim. Given that there were no findings to be made, and that most people don't feel the illness excuse was a lame one (his continuing to work being irrelevant), there is an inevitable and rational feeling that the SRA should never have brought this prosecution and dropped it at the first opportunity. So he leaves the process unstained while those who continue to accuse him don't. The result is therefore not bad for him and not bad for the system.

#Metoo is one of the most biggest witchunts in modern times. Without it, all those dreadful accusations which were formerly not made have been made. As a result, many innocent people have suffered. The Beckwith matter was a mistake, and as a result the SRA is not continuing to prosecute such cases which should never have been brought. The shame about the Mansell case is that it was ever brought by the SRA. The fact that he was well enough to continue working in City job is irrelevant to the strains caused by a witch-hunt. The decision to drop the prosecution made yes sense, but everyone is a loser as it should never have been brought. He gets clearance at least, because there was no decision to make, so no mud sticks, but will inevitably stick to those who continue to accuse him; and the system is made to look a little less foolish. This is happy.

Anonymous 21 January 21 18:51

12.11 - correct. If you read the comments, they mostly don't support the permanent stay of proceedings. They support the proceedings never having been brought.

Anon 21 January 21 21:53

Anonymous 21 January 21 17:45:

#Metoo was never a witch-hunt and is not seen as such: it was about ensuring that victims get justice by calling out behaviour which had previously been swept under the carpet. The Beckwith case was a mess-up by the SRA but it is good to see that prosecutions are still being brought to ensure that people are held to account. The Mansell case was discontinued, so there was no adjudication on the merits, and it was dropped because he claimed he was too ill to participate. Given that no findings were made either way on the merits, and that most people feel the illness excuse was a lame one (not least since he was continuing to work), there is an inevitable and rational feeling that he got away with it. So he does not leave the process unstained. The result is therefore bad for him and bad for the system.

#Metoo is one of the most important movements in modern times. Without it, all that dreadful behaviour which was formerly hidden away has been called out and redressed. As a result, behaviour has generally improved. The Beckwith matter was a mistake, but the SRA is continuing to prosecute cases which deserve it. The shame about the Mansell case is that it was simply abandoned by the SRA because he was ill. Even though he was well enough to continue working in a high pressure City job. Not only does that decision make no sense, but everyone is a loser. He does not get the clearance he might have had, because there was no decision on the merits, and therefore some mud will inevitably stick; and the system is made to look foolish. This is sad.

Anon 21 January 21 21:55

Anonymous 21 January 21 15:29: I am glad that you agree that the comments and voting overwhelmingly speak with one voice: #metoo was a good thing; it was a bad thing for these proceedings to be stopped; and neither Mansell nor the system comes out well from it.

Anon 21 January 21 21:57

Anonymous 21 January 21 18:49: thank you for agreeing that #Metoo was a watershed for women. It brought to the forefront of consideration what a lot of us had had to put up with for years: harassing behaviour from men which was ignored or tolerated - not because it wasn't unacceptable by prevailing standards, but due to a culture of not caring.

Anon 21 January 21 22:00

Anonymous 21 January 21 18:51: incorrect. If you read the comments, they mostly do not support the permanent stay of proceedings and rather support the proposition that the proceedings should have been brought.

Anonymous 22 January 21 08:00

Instead of picking on individuals for events over 20 years ago the SRA should be clamping down on current misuse of NDAs while recognising that they have a useful role in a lot of cases, including (for all parties) in many sexual harassment claims. The courts must also do their part and stop enforcing unfair NDAs, including via contempt proceedings.

Related News