New Zealand's Law Society wants a former Russell McVeagh partner found guilty of "disgraceful" sexual misconduct against interns struck off the roll of barristers and solicitors.
James Gardner-Hopkins was found guilty of six misconduct charges by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal.
Five of the charges related to his behaviour with summer clerks at the "big three" law firm's 2015 Christmas party in Wellington. The sixth charge stemmed from another company function held at his home.
The case became fundamental to starting New Zealand's #MeToo movement and was a catalyst for a wider reckoning in the country's legal sector.
In its liability decision last June, the tribunal found Gardner-Hopkins' behaviour met the test of being "disgraceful or dishonourable".
Earlier this year, the tribunal then ordered he serve a two-year suspension, which began on February 7, and pay a combined $108,008 in costs.
In the High Court at Auckland today, both Gardner-Hopkins and the National Standard's Committee cross-appealed the tribunal's penalty ruling. There has been no appeal of the liability decision.
The committee argued for Gardner-Hopkins to be struck off the roll of barristers and solicitors or suspended for at least three years, while Gardner-Hopkins sought a reduction of the existing penalty.
His lawyer, Julian Long, said his client admits he has nothing to be proud but told the panel of three judges there have been no incidents since Gardner-Hopkins has been working as a barrister sole.
"The only good that can come from this case, if we're being honest, is that the profession has addressed a long-standing issue," Long told the court.
Justice Rebecca Ellis also asked Long: "I know you don't want to call it this, but why was it not indecent assault?"
Long struggled to answer before the judge quipped: "So it was, really."
The committee's lawyer, Dale La Hood, argued the seriousness of Gardner-Hopkins' conduct, his response to deny and defend, and any "ongoing risk" he poses provided a combination of factors warranting a strike-off.
"While it might not be extremely serious criminal behaviour it is very serious misconduct," he said.
The tribunal, chaired by Judge Dale Clarkson, wrote in its penalty ruling the starting point for the offending was a strike-off, but there were other principles weighed against that.
Gardner-Hopkins, who is now separated from his wife, sat silently in the back of the courtroom watching today's hearing.
Justice Ellis, Justice Anne Hinton and Justice Geoffrey Venning reserved their decision, noted its importance for the industry, and indicated it may be several months before being released.
During the tribunal's liability hearing, former summer clerks said Gardner-Hopkins touched them inappropriately, with one woman describing that she felt like a "piece of meat".
Human resources and the firm's board were made aware of the allegations against the then leader of its environmental planning and natural resources team.
"… aggh I have just had summer clerks in here talking about JGH at the Christmas party," the HR officer reacted, according to the liability decision.
In January 2016 an incident with one of the victims was revisited with Gardner-Hopkins by the firm's chief executive and board members after another incident with the young woman and another lawyer in the firm.
Following meetings in early February 2016, where Gardner-Hopkins apologised and admitted he had misled the chief executive and the senior partner, he was told his position was no longer tenable.
It was agreed he would resign and quickly leave the firm. However, Gardner-Hopkins' departure was announced to the rest of the firm — with advance notice having been given to the summer clerks — in "glowing terms".
He was also still at the firm from time to time.
"The summer clerks described how difficult his presence at the firm was for them. They perceived that Mr Gardner-Hopkins' departure was announced in an artificially positive way," the liability decision reads.
Some of the victims have left the profession, while others changed to different areas of law.
"As one of them explained during the liability hearing, the fact that they were not safe from a partner, led to a feeling that they could not be safe anywhere in the workplace," the tribunal's decision read.
The case began after the victims obtained legal advice and made a complaint to the NZLS in 2018. When the allegations emerged into the public arena it led to an outpouring of media coverage and social commentary in the midst of the MeToo movement.
"It is probably fair to say that these events, and the outcomes which followed the two reports of the inquiries, called out unacceptable behaviours and have led to significant changes in many workplaces in the legal profession," the tribunal noted.
Dame Margaret Bazley led an external review into Russell McVeagh and the allegations from the summer of 2015/16.
She interviewed 250 people and in her 89-page report found junior lawyers and staff were encouraged to "drink to excess".
Bazley also found a culture with instances of crude, drunken and sexually inappropriate behaviour. She noted failings in the firm's governance and policies, including no code of conduct, which she said contributed to poor incident management.
Six pages of recommendations advocated for sweeping changes to address bullying, the sexual harassment allegations and company policies.
Russell McVeagh accepted all of the findings and said it would implement all the recommendations.
As a series of scandals rocked some of the country's top law firms, a 2018 Law Society survey of more than 3500 people found about one in three female lawyers has been sexually harassed at some time during their career.
A regulatory working group established by the Law Society and chaired by Dame Silvia Cartwright further examined issues in the legal profession.
It found female lawyers have been subjected to "sexual objectification" for decades and made several recommendations, including new rules for lawyers which specifically require high personal and professional standards for sexual harassment, bullying and discrimination.