The lawyer, who has interim name suppression, was known for his somewhat outlandish behaviour.
However, at two Christmas parties severalyears ago the lawyer was drunk and took his jokes too far when he made comments about employees’ genitalia and sex lives and touched staff inappropriately.
He also told a female intern that she “must have been a fat bitch” and further commented on her weight and said another partner at the firm had “the tiniest penis ever”.
At a second party held some weeks later he allegedly spanked the woman with a piece of wood, danced in a sexualised manner and kissed her on the top of her head.
“Taking account of the number of instances of verbal and physical conduct rightly described as ‘deplorable’; and the number of people targeted (including those about whom he made outrageous and insulting comments) we have no doubt that lawyers of good standing would regard [the lawyer’s] conduct as disgraceful and dishonourable.”
The tribunal said he “totally failed to recognise the effect of the power imbalance between himself and the junior members of staff” for an extended period on two occasions.
A hearing into the man’s conduct was held early last month where several of the junior staff gave evidence that they’d chosen to downplay how the behaviour affected them for fear of not getting hired for a permanent role.
‘Joke gone too far’
In the man’s affidavit to the tribunal he described his behaviour as a “joke gone too far” and that his actions and comments weren’t intended to hurt nor offend anyone.
However, he opened his submissions to the tribunal with an apology, accepting that his actions had been “discourteous and unprofessional”.
“I’ve got a forthright sense of humour and can be provocative and alcohol doesn’t help that,” he said.
“What I think is funny, other people may not, I suppose.”
The lawyer said his conduct was intended to be perceived as lighthearted and accepts that it wasn’t seen that way and he overestimated the level of familiarity he had with the junior clerks at the firm.
As part of his submissions, the man argued that his conduct occurred off the clock, rather than in the course of his work, and as such he should be subject to a lesser charge of unsatisfactory conduct rather than misconduct.
The precedent-setting case about whether lawyers who aren’t at work and misbehave should be subject to disciplinary action is James Gardner-Hopkins, the Russell McVeagh partner who was suspended for inappropriately touching summer interns at a Christmas party.
The tribunal said the lawyer was perhaps worse than the incident that saw James Gardner-Hopkins, pictured, suspended.
In that decision, the tribunal found that Gardener-Hopkins was attending the party as a team leader, at a function run by his firm, for employees of that firm so it was in essence an extension of his work.
“This is another case involving bad behaviour of a senior lawyer at his firm’s Christmas parties,” the tribunal noted at the beginning of its decision, in a nod to the Gardener-Hopkins case.
“By comparison in the present case, the practitioner was equally inebriated and perhaps was even more offensive and disrespectful, given the greater number of subjects of his conduct.”
The tribunal said that while the lawyer attempted to paint himself as someone who used self-deprecating humour, it couldn’t see any examples of this.
“Rather, his humour was directed at and about others, almost all of whom were in an inferior employment role to his, as a team leader and partner of a firm,” its ruling reads.
“The humour implied that the junior staff enjoyed being sexual playthings to senior staff. He abused his position of power.”
The tribunal found the man guilty of misconduct and will schedule a penalty hearing in the near future.
Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.
