The committee determined that the lawyer's behaviour amounted to serious unsatisfactory conduct
A Standards Committee has fined a lawyer $15,000 over actions that violated his firm’s sexual harassment policy, reported the NZ Law Society.
The committee determined that the behaviour displayed by the lawyer (Mr X), which included repeated attempts to pursue a relationship with an employee and making unwanted physical contact, constituted serious unsatisfactory conduct under section 12(b) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006.
The employee in question, Ms Z, was a manager at the firm where Mr X was a partner. She reported directly to him in her role, and it was in this context that Mr X reportedly kept trying to initiate a romantic relationship with her.
Ms Z reported Mr X's conduct to another partner and claimed that Mr X had requested to visit her home to give her a present before Christmas. He touched her arm, shoulder, and hand; he also kissed her on the lips. Additionally, he extended several invitations to spend time with him outside of work and scheduled numerous meetings in her office that impacted her ability to do her job due to the manner of the meetings.
The firm engaged an independent investigator over the matter, and the investigation report substantiated Ms Z’s claims. The report indicated that Mr X had violated the firm's sexual harassment policy in the following ways:
The law firm submitted the report to the Law Society under Rule 2.9 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. The committee noted that Mr X's conduct was not an isolated incident that represented a momentary lapse of judgment but was displayed repeatedly over months. The committee also found that as per the evidence presented to them, Mr X's verbal and physical approaches towards Ms Z were unwelcome and caused discomfort and distress.
The persistence of Mr X's conduct, the power imbalance between them and the resulting stress to Ms Z were considered aggravating factors. The committee acknowledged that Mr X might have initially misunderstood the nature of his relationship with Ms Z, considering the complexities of workplace interactions. However, Mr X continued his actions beyond what would be considered reasonable, especially once it was evident that his feelings were not reciprocated and were unwelcome.
Thus, the committee imposed the maximum fine of $15,000 on Mr X and ordered him to contribute to the costs of the proceedings.
