The Respondent and both complainants were colleagues at the Firm who, after long working hours, regularly socialised at various bars and clubs in London following the end of the national lockdown in 2021.

Person A, a Paralegal from a different team, alleged that on seven occasions during social outings between September and December 2021—including the final instance at the Respondent’s residence—the Respondent had touched her in an unwanted, inappropriate, and sexually motivated manner.

The Respondent and Person B, a married Associate lawyer from another team, developed a close personal friendship, which the Respondent conceded was ‘confusing’ for him. Person B alleged that, during an outing in October 2021, the Respondent attempted to kiss her. Later, in March 2022, during a shared taxi journey following a social gathering, he allegedly touched her breast under her clothing on three successive occasions. The touching was said to be unwanted, inappropriate, and sexually motivated.

The Respondent denied all allegations made by Person A, who he believed regarded their attraction to be mutual. He asserted that some encounters with Person A were consensual, while others did not occur as alleged. Regarding Person B, he denied attempting to kiss her and refuted her account of the taxi journey.

The Tribunal found only one allegation against the Respondent in relation to Person A, the non-consensual touching of her bottom, proved on the balance of probabilities. Additionally, it found the non-consensual touching of Person B during the taxi to be proved to the same standard.

It was argued on behalf of the Respondent that the conduct occurred outside the scope of legal practice, did not engage the relevant Principles or the Code for Solicitors, and therefore did not constitute a regulatory issue. However, the Tribunal reached a different conclusion based on the evidence before it. It determined that the Respondent’s non-consensual touching of colleagues was sufficiently serious to damage the reputation of the profession. Having found breaches of Principles 2 and 5, the Tribunal concluded that a 12-month suspension was warranted.