"Not being able to maintain your lifestyle is not the same as financial ruin."
La Hood also noted that while Gardner-Hopkins said he had made improvements regarding his alcohol problems, this wasn't the only issue and many people who struggle with alcohol don't sexually assault others.
He said being struck off should be the starting point and the penalty imposed by the Tribunal needs to be sufficient to denounce the conduct, not just to Gardner-Hopkins but for the general profession.
Being struck off may not be permanent, and La Hood reminded the Tribunal that Gardner-Hopkins could apply to be reinstated down the track.
As well as this, he submitted that there was a limit on the lawyer's remorse, as it was only after the guilty ruling that there was full acceptance of his behaviour.
Gardner-Hopkins' lawyer, Julian Long, said his client had committed to change in relation to his drinking but said that he recognised he still has other work to do on himself.
"That further work can occur without the ultimate sanction of removing Mr Gardner-Hopkins from the profession."
Long argued that when the incidents happened, his behaviour was unfortunately more common in law workplaces.
While he said there were new rules in the profession, there was no "bright line" like there is for misconduct such as dishonesty.
He told the Tribunal that the man before them was of no further risk and had submitted letters of support from clients and friends who spoke highly of him.
In June the Tribunal found Gardner-Hopkins' conduct in all the charges relating to six separate incidents met the test of being regarded as "disgraceful or dishonourable".
Five of the charges related to his behaviour at the law firm's Christmas party.
"At that party, five incidents of drunken behaviour occurred with junior staff members involving tactile dancing and other physical contact."
The sixth charge related to his behaviour at another firm function held at his home.
During the tribunal hearing multiple former summer clerks testified that Gardner-Hopkins had touched them inappropriately, with one woman describing that she felt like a "piece of meat".
Another woman said she felt "extremely" distressed and "cried all weekend" after he had touched her without consent and allegedly touched her friend's breast in front of her.
When she discovered other women claimed they too had experienced misconduct she said it was "terrifying" because it made it feel like "it's inescapable".
One victim claimed it felt like he touched her breast "forever".
At the hearing Gardner-Hopkins said he had no intention of "creeping", and he said it was "devastating" to learn how his actions affected the clerks.
One former worker told the hearing that supporting the interns who accused him of sexual misconduct felt like a "full-time job".
She said even after complaints had been escalated he remained working and the women were "petrified" of running into him and were "traumatised".
The woman said she was told by various people in the firm that she was a "troublemaker" and that she was making a "mountain out of a molehill".
"Gaslighting is probably the best way to describe it."
The incident where the practitioner touched an intern's breast in front of others led to charge five, and was "arguably the most serious" according to the ruling.
"The fact that the practitioner was so disinhibited that he touched Ms B intimately in front of other people may speak to his level of intoxication.
"The accounts of the witnesses also agree that the practitioner suggested going home with Ms B at least twice, separately from his suggestion that they go to town together."
It also referred to the firm's culture of "work hard play hard", and in particular about the culture of the EPNR team led by Gardner-Hopkins.
One young lawyer who worked in his team said her perception was that there was a misogynistic culture in that team and certainly female employees did not last long.
