Eversheds Sutherland client manager banned for groping colleague

_{A suggested anti-groping sticker to be worn at law firm away days}

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has prohibited a former Eversheds Sutherland client development manager from working in a legal practice after he repeatedly groped a female colleague without her consent.

Jake Flint worked at Eversheds Sutherland as a senior client development manager. In July 2022, Flint attended a marketing away day organised by the firm, which included a social event and an overnight stay at a hotel.

After the event, when walking to the hotel with a group of colleagues, the Eversheds senior manager "touched and grabbed the breast of one of his colleagues without her consent" on three occasions, according to a decision by the SRA. On each occasion, Flint's colleague told him that she did not want him to do so, and asked him to stop.

Back at the hotel, Flint "put his arm around his colleague’s waist and touched her bottom," noted the SRA. The colleague again told Flint to stop, and another colleague had to step in to speak to Flint about his behaviour.

But Flint persisted, and later that evening he approached his colleague again, when she was ordering takeaway food with other Eversheds staffers. Flint then put his hand on her upper thigh and asked her if they were eating food in his room or hers.

Flint left the firm a month later.

In its decision, the SRA held that the senior manager's actions were of a "serious nature" as he repeatedly touched "his colleague in a sexual way without her consent" and made "a comment to her of a sexual nature".

The regulator prohibited the senior manager from being employed by a legal practice without the SRA's prior permission and ordered that he pay £600 in costs.

The SRA's decision (a Section 43 Order) is not a total ban, as a firm could apply to the regulator for permission to employ the client development specialist. The SRA could approve such an application if various conditions are met, such as the firm closely supervising and monitoring the employee.

Flint accepted the regulator's decision against him. Eversheds Sutherland declined to comment.

Comments

Surprised that nobody has thought to ask some searching questions about these flimsy allegations, has nobody else noticed that the article is suspiciously silent as to whether these rooms had fitted kitchenettes or not? Does nobody else think that fact would be pertinent to assessing the legitimacy of a query as to which room was to be used to eat a takeaway in?

If true, this would a criminal matter and not one for the SRA.

Jake, please invite me to your next party! Hide the women!

Well done, you're learning the importance of keeping an open mind. Now, what are the questions you should be asking?

Would expect this to also be reported to the police

Standard, as a groped trainee (at a networking event), this sadly happens more often than not. People (like me) are just too scared to say anything.

Dear SRA,

I appreciate 🙏 everything you do to protect women from sexual predators but for Pete's sake maybe some of this needs to be police matters.

Maybe as regulators you could do a better flipping job of regulating the profession and protect all of us from the likes of Prags and Alice who are out and out shyters, fraudsters and charlatans holding out as legitimate lawyers ?

What is the logic behind banning him from working in the legal sector, but leaving him free to work in other areas?

I thought the regulators existed to protect clients and the administration of justice, but this behaviour, bad though it is, is irrelevant to that. So what exactly is the logic of the SRA dealing with it, rather than say the police?