Some of the drinking behaviour outlined sounded similar to that which might occur at teenage parties, rather than what we might expect from those associated with a high-flying law firm.
The New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal found James Desmond Gardner-Hopkins guilty of misconduct on six charges brought by a national standards committee on behalf of the New Zealand Law Society.
The charges involved inappropriate sexual conduct at two Christmas functions in Wellington. In all six incidents from which the charges arose, Mr Gardner-Hopkins’ behaviour was found to be disgraceful or dishonourable.
Five charges related to his behaviour at the firm’s Christmas party with summer law clerks and the sixth involved behaviour at another firm function held at his home.
It would be three years before details of all of the incidents were made public, although Gardner-Hopkins was required to leave the firm in early 2016, following some reporting of the incidents.
In 2018 when the women affected complained to the law society and the allegations entered the public domain, with the Me Too movement in full swing, the reverberations included an independent review being undertaken at the request of Russell McVeagh and the setting up of a law society working group.
In its decision the tribunal said it was ‘‘probably fair to say that these events and the outcomes which followed the two reports of the inquiries, called out unacceptable behaviours and have led to significant changes in many workplaces in the legal profession’’.
The spotlight on this case also prompted other women to talk about their experiences in other law practices.
The spectacle has not been an edifying one and many who would understandably expect lawyers to act with decorum as a matter of course will have been shocked by the revelations.
In its statement on the tribunal findings, the law society says the decision sets a clear benchmark for the standards expected of lawyers, not only within an office environment but when attending work functions and events.
We are surprised lawyers were not already aware of what those standards should be.
The society also referred to the attention drawn to the need for senior lawyers to model appropriate behaviour, stating that in this case Mr Gardner-Hopkins should have been aware of the apparent power imbalance between a partner and junior staff members at a social function.
Again, we find the society’s need to spell this out curious. Many lawyers would deal daily with clients badly treated in relationships of one sort or another involving power imbalances. It is not reassuring to think some senior lawyers may lack insight into this situation in their own workplaces.
We welcome the new rules governing the behaviour of lawyers which come into force at the beginning of July.
These include clearer definitions of bullying discrimination and harassment and violence, new reporting requirements for notifying conduct to the law society, and requirements for effective policies and systems to prevent and protect employees and others from bullying, discrimination harassment or violence. Victimising someone who makes a report in good faith will be prohibited.
The tribunal said it would not want its decision to be read as one which prevented enjoyable or warm interactions between practitioners, or to be read as enforcing a humourless rigid code of behaviour on the legal profession, which was already stress-laden.
While we agree with that view, it would seem that as well as understanding the relevance of power imbalances as the tribunal suggests, some reflection on the appropriateness of excessive alcohol consumption at work gatherings might also be needed.
