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
1256
1014
1268
1012
1260
1005
1277
972
1285
990
1303
936
1286
983
1307
977
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
1187
1051
1282
1007
1223
1028
1263
1018
"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.
1285
937
1242
988
1290
1002
Firms don’t normally pay settlements off the back of drunken flirtation
1259
1019
I wonder if the partners knew their profits were being siphoned off to silence an associate?
1276
970
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!
1254
959
Four different law firms all had that one partner. Nothing ever gets done about it. Hopefully post Weinstien the tide might start changing.
1291
981
1237
991
1238
987
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.
1208
1000
1259
1018
1300
1013
1239
1038
1262
985
1211
1044
1249
958
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!
1258
997
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.
1214
1010
1305
944
1229
1008
1187
1007
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.
1219
1019
1198
1033
However there were some pretty dark figures in senior management who really did try to do a Harvey Weinstein
1231
996
1261
1055
Strike a managing partner off for not providing a safe and respectable working environment and attitudes will change very fast indeed....
1251
953
1280
962
1222
1000
1213
1019
1299
964
1231
968
1233
969
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/14/us/firms-wake-up-to-the-problem-of-sex-harassment.html
1232
997
1249
1012
1284
1021
1257
984
1298
1003
1279
993
1197
923
1185
940
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 .....
1235
917
1172
972