Law firm staff found guilty of unsatisfactory conduct after probe into racist emails

Two women resigned from their jobs at a law firm after they were caught sending racist emails to each other about a colleague.

Two women caught making racist email comments about a colleague have shown no remorse and troubled authorities with limited participation in a subsequent investigation.

The pair were working at a law firm when a third party identified several exchanges via the firm’s email, containing comments they had made about people’s race, religion and appearance.

Now, the New Zealand Law Society standards committee has slammed the pair’s conduct, saying “racist comments exchanged between colleagues and made about others in their workplace is inappropriate and unprofessional to the extent requiring a disciplinary finding”.

In a recent decision, which did not name the women or the law firm, the committee determined that the use of a nickname for a colleague by them amounted to unsatisfactory conduct.

‘Wider context of contempt’

According to the decision, the pair exchanged the comments while using their work emails during work hours.

They were prompted by their interactions with and observations of colleagues during their workday, and also by an announcement from law firm management.

In the emails, they discussed one of their colleagues, referring to them using a derogatory nickname, which was not mentioned in the decision.

Their communications were reported to the firm and, after an internal disciplinary meeting, the pair resigned.

The matter was reported by the firm to the NZ Law Society, which launched an investigation.

The committee had no doubt that the term used to describe their colleague was a racial slur.

“In the context of the emails specifically, it was being used to reinforce a negative view of their colleague due to the colour of their skin.”

The committee noted the phrase was used to describe their colleague in multiple email exchanges, which suggested that the language formed a “wider context of contempt”.

Lack of insight and no evidence of remorse

While the pair were not lawyers, the committee emphasised that the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act was also applicable to non-lawyer employees, who could be subject to a disciplinary process, and that the act “explicitly allows standards committees to consider the conduct of any employee of a law firm, not just those who are lawyers”.

“It appeared to the committee that they lacked insight into the seriousness of their conduct,” the decision said.

“There was no evidence of remorse for the way they referred to their colleague; the committee was also troubled by their limited participation in the process.”

The pair submitted that they suffered significant harm after their resignations.

One of them was still unemployed at the time the decision was issued.

The committee acknowledged it was a considerable consequence of their actions at the firm.

“Since they were not lawyers, the committee considered that the circumstances of the case and the mitigating factors outweighed the need for a penalty order other than the formal finding of unsatisfactory conduct.

“The committee was assured that their colleague was not aware of the comments made in the emails, limiting the harm caused.”

‘Unacceptable and unprofessional’

The committee had considered freedom of speech arguments, and in their view, the language was accurately characterised as a racial slur, “deliberately chosen to reinforce a negative view about a person in the workplace and in discussions with another colleague”.

“In this context, and when considered against the professional expectations of lawyers, it fell outside the margins of freedom of expression seen in previous cases and is appropriate for consideration and sanction within a disciplinary context.”

It was determined that publication of the decision would serve as a reminder to the law profession that, while interactions may feel personal to those involved, “they may still be professional in nature and incidental to the provision of regulated services, particularly when they have occurred in the workplace and can be assessed through a disciplinary lens”.

The committee concluded the conduct was unacceptable and unprofessional.

Al Williams is an Open Justice reporter for the New Zealand Herald, based in Christchurch. He has worked in daily and community titles in New Zealand and overseas for the last 16 years. Most recently he was editor of the Hauraki-Coromandel Post, based in Whangamatā. He was previously deputy editor of the Cook Islands News.