A Managing Partner of a top City firm has been caught publicly sharing his membership of sexually explicit Facebook groups.
The MP's public Facebook profile mentioned not just his membership of the firm, but also of some "special interest" groups that contained graphic photos and content. The sort of stuff that gets firewalled out of most firms, and for which training contract applicants would probably not get through initial filtering if it featured on their Facebook profiles.
When RollOnFriday got in touch the firm claimed that the partner had made a mistake with his privacy settings - and the groups suddenly disappeared from his profile. And the firm clearly took the matter very seriously: the Head of Risk was informed, discussions were had with the firm's General Counsel. But after two days of running around in a panic the firm decided to do nothing.
 |
How he might have looked |
Although that didn't stop the MP instructing his lawyers to send the inevitable letter threatening hellfire and damnation if RollOnFriday was to publish. Although it was silent as to how this hellfire and damnation might manifest itself, given that the information was in the public domain and clearly not actionable.
In fact RollOnFriday doesn't see any good reason to name someone for sharing what are, after all, perfectly legal interests. However the partner claimed that his firm (unlike others) has no social network usage policy as it has no interest in interfering with the personal lives of its staff.
But with the ever increasing presence of Facebook, Twitter et al, is that wise? Or should firms expect those in leadership positions at least to keep their personal lives private - and take action if they don't?
Please chip in your two cents below.
Comments
7
3
2
3
3
2
6
5
3
2
3
2
6
2
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
2
4
1
2
5
My own "perfectly legal interests" are certainly less lurid than this guy's would appear to be, but I still don't want them to be published on a gossip website.
To all who are baying for blood ("TELL US WHO", "grow a pair and name him" et al)- I would be interested to know- why? So you can revel in his shame? Not very edifying.
6
3
There is a world of difference between the two. The CC trainee talked in the video about f**king people over and churning money out of clients. He not only brought his firm into disreput, but also enforced some of the worst stereotypes of City lawyers. In all, questions must be asked as to his integrity and his suitability as a lawyer.
Contrast this with the MP- so his private life is rather colourful? How do these proclivities, lurid though they are, affect his innate ability as (1) a lawyer and (2) as a manager?
I fail to see how having a few rather fruity (but "perfectly legal") extra curricular interests affects your management style.
Happy to be corrected, of course...?
5
4
3
4
I assume you're not a litigator then? Don't try that one in court...
3
2
6
3
You do not have to be a colleague to show some common decency... or do you? Read the article about the trainee, plenty of decent people showed up to defend him and on principle thought he shouldn't suffer... because he's not hurting anyone. Bully-style comments on articles like these reveal some of the more disgusting aspects of people in general.
3
4
Its probably not even that interesting but serves the tw@t right for putting whatever it was on Facebook but I disagree with the do-gooders that its not fair to name him because of ramifications for his career because they don't care too much about the other people they have named
3
4
Don't put it all on Facebook then!
6
6
6
3
8
5
In the same breath they both state how unfair it was that the trainee was named, and then go on to say that this MP should be named too.
If it was unfair to name the trainee, how is it fair to name the MP? If RoF did wrong to name the trainee, why is it "fairness" to treat someone else equally badly?? This is simply "eye-for-an-eye" justice.
Either both should be named or both should be anonymous- if you believe the trainee was unfairly treated, it doesn't serve your pretention to "justice" to make amends by calling for another innocent man's scalp.
5
3
9
3
6
2
4
1
I placed the comment at 8.22am and as I dont work for a law firm can we now assume that my comment is not worthless (unlike yours)? Having reread this so called piece of news, it appears that the delightful Mr Rhodes and his cohorts seem to be asking the mob to bay as loudly as possible in order for him to justify publishing the individual's name. I am not sure what that says about him nor about some of those commenting on this piece. How sad and lonely your lives must be. WHy dont you spend the weekend looking into your souls and wonder what your lives have come to.
4
3
5
2
9
3
5
3
4
1
5
1
2
4
9
4
7
5
6
2
12
3
6
2
To say RoF is pathetic for reviewing the pages of Managing Partners Facebook pages is contradictory for any person that has commented. If you do not like that behaviour, you should not ever visit RoF.
As for the Managing Partner. Having reference to your place of work alongside membership of highly dubious groups on the world's most well known public profile website, is a mistake but a very stupid one. It is the equivalent of discussing these very same dubious groups at a Firm drinks night with fellow colleagues and clients!
Facebook have probably done the MP in question a favour of flagging it, not reporting him, and allowing him to remove it before clients and others have found it.
How the MP deals with the next case against one of his employees concerning their behaviour, will be a test as to whether it is one rule for him and another for everyone else. A test of whether he is a hypocrite or a person to be trusted.