It'll be interesting to hear all of the evidence.

Wonder if mentioned all this to gunnercooke before joining...

Someone has watched too many movies.

@8.09 - unlikely sexual exploits came up during the interview. Doubt she'll mention it either in future interviews.

His poor wife (google his name and you can find their wedding website as a top hit).

Can we really be sure that Person A exists?

Is it not at least equally likely that they are an imaginary confection of gunnercooke's marketing team who have deliberately planted this story in the press in an effort to increase the firm's SEO prominence for searches of "sexual harassment lawyer" and thereby generate elevated levels of inbound traffic for its employment and criminal law practitioners?

Does anyone have any evidence to the contrary?

@14.14 - you're learning, we'll make an open-minded individual of you yet! 5/10!

Now, what are the three questions you should be asking?

Thing is there are so many consensual ways to achieve this (noted it’s only alleged). 

Well done gunnercooke for waiting to see what happens. About time firms respected the rule of law and the presumption of innocence (yes he may be guilty - but he has not been found to be guilty yet!)

Regardless of what has happened in this case, 18 year old apprentices with no university experience or proper experience of the working world need a system in place to protect them from office creeps, bullies etc seeking to exploit that inexperience. I hope Gowling, and other law firms taking on apprentices straight out of school, learn some lessons here.

@Nonny - we dont know yet if she needed or wanted protection. Its not for law firms to act as self-appointed arbitrary moral guardians.

Wasn’t this guy at Cobbetts as a trainee? Or did he tippex from his CV?

@17.08 I don’t think having a system in place which ensures that the youngest, most inexperienced people within a company feel comfortable talking to someone about behaviour by colleagues they are not sure about, uncomfortable with etc makes that company a “self appointed arbitrary moral guardian”. It just means there is something in place to help that person out if they do perceive that they want or need some help or guidance. Not sure what’s controversial about that. 

I find the fact this is playing out in the public eye to be pretty distasteful and deeply unfair. His name is plastered all over the internet and even if he beats the rap (which admittedly seems unlikely) his reputation will not recover for a very long time, if ever. It seems quite wrong to me. 

Yeah he was there in the Birmingham office remember him from first day of training contract. Really good at cricket so surprised he missed with all those ping pong balls…[allegedly]

@Nonny @18.17 - it would be controversial in the same way that any moral policing is, especiallywhen its done by an employer. Often the people giving the 'help' or 'guidance' have an agenda of an axe to grind. 'Uncomfortable' is an overused pejorative term which doesn't mean anything.

@15.25 - why do you think anyone should be asking anything at all?

Ahhhhhh

Wasn’t he at Dundas & Wilson too?

@20.14 Who is “policing” anything in what I have suggested? I’m talking about something like a buddy or mentor system (which should be in place anyway) where this kind of thing would be picked up and the relevant signposts (to someone in HR or whatever) be provided at the earliest opportunity. Why would such a buddy or mentor be likely to have an “agenda or axe to grind”?
Perhais you should ask yourself why you find what I’m suggesting so threatening…

@ Anonymous 17.08

Dude, the fact that you see things like bullying and harassment in the workplace as mere “moral” issues is your problem right there. 

@20.29 aaaah, yes, now you see. So, what are the three questions you should be asking?

If the allegations are true, Gowling WLG may have some unhappy clients who have paid for a full day’s work but now realise their lawyer was not concentrating on their conditions precedent 

@Nonny - its obvious why establishing moral police in the workplace to go to HR about relationships they don't approve or are jealous of is threatening.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why you think its such a good idea...

@18:41 isn’t this relevant to the question of bringing the profession into disrepute and acting with (or without) integrity, both of which are fundamental principles of being a solicitor?  How can a client trust their lawyer if they are abusing a position of power or spending client time / fees improperly? 

This must be quite entertaining for any ex’s of his. 

Nonny 03 March 23 21:51: spot on.

“Its [sic] not for law firms to act as self-appointed arbitrary moral guardians.”

Why are you talking about the Guardian newspaper?

Anonymous 03 March 23 17:08

@Nonny - we dont know yet if she needed or wanted protection. Its not for law firms to act as self-appointed arbitrary moral guardians.

If you consider protecting 18 year olds from sexual predators in the work place reprehensible there is no place for you in the legal profession or indeed any profession.  Safeguarding vulnerable people from abuse is rightly regarded as an essential part of any business or service providing entity nowadays - and thank God for that.  People who turn a blind eye to abuse are treated as enablers at best and culpable at worst, depending on the nature and circumstances of the abuse.

Probably best if you stay in your mum's back bedroom tapping away on your DHSS provided laptop.  It would be nice if you could put some trousers on though.

Bit of a stretch to describe instructing the work experience girl to masturbate in the toilets as "a relationship".  The only other people I've had contact with who hold those sort of attitudes have been on the Sexual Offender's Register.

I wish you well in your future career.  I hope it is very short.

Anonymous 03 March 23 15:25: you are (again) being ridiculed, Question Man.

Anon 03 March 23 22:33: don’t forget that @ Anonymous 17.08 is Question Man, who is an incel and apologist for those who commit sexual harassment.

@Bob Hope - and her poor boyfriend/fiance/husband. At least they're not named, which shows how unfair the process is.

Anonymous 04 March 23 18:20: the person who described the suggestion to the work experience girl to masturbate in the toilets as "a relationship", was the odious Question Man, who is an egregious apologist for people who commit sexual misconduct.

@[email protected] - leave Nonny's acne out of this!

@[email protected] - we're not, why are you!

@[email protected] - wiping the floor with you is hardly 'being ridiculed'.

@[email protected] - incel is a sexist slur and is not ok. We don't know yet if 'sexual harassment' was committed or who committed it, other than we know that thd SDT publishing the name of the accused at this stage and not that of the accuser is a form of sexual harassment.

Anon 05 March 23 09:20: yes. Question Man is ill. We all hoped he’d seek psychiatric help in 2023 but that doesn’t seem to have happened.

Anonymous 05 March 23 09:37: I can imagine Question Man writing all that whilst sitting in a bath of cold baked beans. 

@Anon 05 March 23 07:06 - true but Question Man has no self-awareness.

@Anonymous 3rd March 22.33 - actually the fact that you see things like consensual relationships as 'bullying' and 'harassment in the workplace' as mere “ is your problem right there. Dude.

@[email protected] - we don't know if they're true yet. His or theirs.

@4, 12.47 - yes, it is, and we don't know yet if it is the accused or the accusers who have brought the profession into disrepute and acted with without integrity. I think that's why 3rd @18.41 was criticising the accused's public shaming prior to the end of the tribunal (even if the outcome is a foregone conclusion).

@ Anonymous 05 March 23 09:37

I can't think of any good reasons why a man supervising an 18 year old on work experience would send them a video of himself masturbating.

Can you remind me what they are?  They've slipped my mind for a moment.  I keep getting stuck on these silly notions of responsibility, imbalance of power and safeguarding.

Be a good chap and post them if you can.

@Greengrassoutthere - and ex's of hers don't forget!

@9.49 - what illness? Who all? What psychiatric help? Psychiatric help for what? What doesn't seem to have happened?

@9.51 - please keep your fantasies to yourself!

@Larry9.56 - self awareness of what?

Anonymous 04 March 23 18:08

If you consider consensual sex reprehensible then there is no place for you in the legal or indeed any other profession. We don't know if anyone needs protection or if there are sexual predators in this workplace. 18 year old are adults. Morality policing is nothing to do with safeguarding vulnerable people or preventing abuse, rather it is about targeting people and abusing them. People who are fanatical about judging the morals of others are treated as enablers at best and culpable at worst, depending on the nature and circumstances of the abuse.

Your rant about mums , DHSS and trousers is just the mask slipping and is an unsurprising exposure of what would be morality guardians are really like, completely proving why they should be nowhere near employers. Their real interest isn't in protecting anyone, but is instead one drive by hate and misandry.

I think we need to follow this rabbit all the way down the hole.

Let us imagine, for a moment, that a senior solicitor at a reputable law firm interviewed an 18 year old for a work experience position and subsequently took them on.

Let us go further and imagine that the 18 year old then asked the senior solicitor to engage in an affair with them including but not limited to sexual interactions at work like those described in the article.  

What is the appropriate course of action for the senior solicitor to take? 

Is it: a) to participate in the affair; or is it b) to share this information with colleagues / HR and either find someone else to supervise the work experience person or terminate their position and suggest they look for work experience elsewhere?

4th March 18.20 - you'd be surprised what people do in consensual relationships. Masturbation doesn't warrant inclusion on the Sexual Offenders Register, so not sure what Register you've been looking at or who you've been in contact with.

I wish you well in your future career. I hope that it is very long and that you look back on your younger foolishness with the appropriate level of embarrassment.

"I can't think of any good reasons why a man supervising an 18 year old on work experience would send them a video of himself masturbating."

Throw me a line here, is she doing work experience at a clinic for chronic masturbators?

Because in those circumstances I can just about start to think of a, like, half plausible justification.

Anon 05 March 23 09:51 - yes, Question Man is totally insane.

I wonder how much porn someone has to watch to think the behaviour described is okay.

I bet it's a lot.

If only he'd realised he was watching paid actors rather than a real-world documentary this might not have happened.

Sorry.  Got to go.  My pizza delivery has arrived.  I'll just go get the lube and take off all my clothes to answer the door.

@9.20 - it is a false allegation that anyone said that the suggestion to the 18 year old was a 'relationship'. False allegations are very commom when it comes to sexual matters.

We don't know yet if 'sexual misconduct was committed or who committed it, other than we know that thd SDT publishing the name of the accused at this stage and not that of the accuser is a form of sexual harassment, so there is nothing to apologise for.

@13.29 - I think what slipped your mind is that it may have been consnsual and that women aren't children.

Be a good chap and post why if you can.

Worth nothing that there are 3 different women making accusations here, not just one.

At least part of the reason his name has been released will probably be to see if anyone else comes forward with credible allegations.  And if there is photographic or movie evidence of him, knob out and grinning, then it seems justified.

@13:29

It’s not an offence, whether criminal or regulatory, to do something without “good reasons”. Neither is being in a relationship which is does not have the perfect balance of power. 
 

like it or not; this all stands or falls on whether the interactions where consensual.

She said that she told him she'd opened the video, but that she hadn't really opened it. If she hadn't opened it then how did she know what was on it?

@23.29 shame i deleted all those videos years ago.

Misandry heh.

It's the poor senior solicitor who conducted the interview and [allegedly] threw ping pong balls down her blouse who is the real victim here.  From the sounds of things the poor man wasn't even allowed to squeeze her breasts while making honking noises.

Surely that's a breach of workplace rights.

Anonymous 06 March 23 08:44

She said that she told him she'd opened the video, but that she hadn't really opened it. If she hadn't opened it then how did she know what was on it?

Perhaps he told her what was on it.  Perhaps there is a picture icon with him with his hand on his knob.  Perhaps she watched the first two seconds, said "ugh" and closed it, never to open it or look at it again.  Feel free to add to the  list of possibilities...

I wonder how much porn you have to watch to think that the behaviour described above is a relationship.

It’s not an offence, whether criminal or regulatory, to do something without “good reasons”. Neither is being in a relationship which is does not have the perfect balance of power. 
 

like it or not; this all stands or falls on whether the interactions where consensual.

So the opinion from Mum's Basement Chambers is that this does not harm the reputation of the profession?

@13.29 - I think what slipped your mind is that it may have been consnsual and that women aren't children.

Be a good chap and post why if you can.

Oh mate....  If only you were half as clever as you think you are.

Consent is not the get out of jail free card you seem to think it is.

There are plenty of consensual acts and behaviours that break rules and regulations, are illegal or even criminal.

Perhaps you need to dust off your Law for Dummies.

[email protected] - it is indeed a moral issue. The rabbit hole is whether it is a regulatory one. What is a 'senior solicitor'? And 18 year olds are adults. At this stage we don't know who instigated the affair. And maybe sacking her if she did would be a harsh. 

@[email protected] - in what way?

If it was a consensual relationship why did she complain?

If it was a consensual relationship why did he attempt to conceal his actions?

“his attempts to conceal his actions were painstaking and meticulous”

If it was consensual why didn't he stop when his Person A uncomfortable?

Person A initially “found it funny”, but her amusement turned to discomfort as the then 36-year-old solicitor continued with his inappropriate conduct

If it was consensual why didn't he inform HR or any colleagues about the relationship?  Given that the interviewed and supervised her it would seem a sensible course of action.

Surprised this hasn't hit the nationals yet.  Surely will when the result comes out, if not before.

[email protected] - was he supervising her on work experience?

The other, like, half plausible, explanation is that they were in a consensual relationship.

@ 05 March 23.29 - how can we be sure that there are three separate women? 

What evidence is there that Person A, Person B, and Person C are different people?

How do we know that it is not just one individual taking turns to stand behind three different black cardboard cut-outs of women, each daubed with a letter in white paint, and putting on a slightly different squeaky voice each time?

Did he do the honka honka?

#metoo

[email protected] - yes, that's the reality, and often there's a mutual imbalance of power in these relationships. And people multiple upvoting their own comments and multiple downvoting others won't change that.

Oo errr - making the DM must be perceived as reaching the height of one’s career ambitions - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11823723/Senior-solicitor-41-threw-ping-pong-balls-teen-workers-dress.html?ito=native_share_article-top

This may or may not have been a consensual arrangement gone wrong, however, we can't ignore the unfortunate reality that inappropriate comments/actions are sadly all too familiar in the workplace for young women.

In my first week as a trainee solicitor (at a very reputable west-end firm) the senior partner offered to lick my fingers after I apologised for not being able to shake his hand, as he approached me whilst I was snacking on the nibbles and had olive brine on my hands...

At the time I laughed nervously but felt deeply uncomfortable. I would like to think I would react differently now (7 years on) but it's tempting not to want to be "seen to be making a fuss" and/or not wanting to jeopardise your career for calling out senior management.

@[email protected] - exactly, worth nothing that there are three accusations from different women as we don't know if they are true or whether they're really separate or what how the complaints were induced. And Person C's complaint seems very flimsy to be a regulatory matter, her saying she didnt complain because she wanted to preserve her friendship with the accused. One only hopes she wasn't coerced into complaining now.

The reason his name was released is to humiliate him and have people sexually abuse him. Its a form of sexual harassment. By your logic his three accusers should be named in case other people come forward to say they've been falsely accused by them. And by your logic if your hoped for 'grinning knob out' photos or videos don't appear then releasing his name would seem unjustified.

@10.21 - How do you know that my copy of Law for Dummies has dust on it?

What evidence do you have that it is not in daily use here at my chambers, and is in fact well-thumbed and thickly covered with fingerprints that look suspiciously like cheese flavoured Dorito residue throughout? 

@9.52 - that's ok, just say a man abused his power imbalance to make you delete them.

@9.55

Misandry yeh

We don't know who the real victim is or whose workplace rights have been breached, other than that his being named at this stage make him a victim.

There has been no suggestion that the poor man wanted to squeeze her breasts while making honking noises or that the poor woman wanted to squeeze his breasts while making honking noises, but if either if them did want to squeeze the other's breasts while making honking noises and it was consensual then that's their business, not ours.

@9.59 - there are many possibilities, but the important one is what actually happened. What was said in the tribunal about how she knew what happened in a video she said shd hadn't watched?

@10.01 - the real question is how repressed do you have to be to ask that question!

@10.06 - not sure why two adults in a consensual relationship would damage the profession. As has been said, this case turns on the issue of consent.

As for 'mum's basement', you sound like just the sort of person who would propose workplace morality police to 'support vulnerable persons'. Oh, wait...

@10.18 - then they'd still be twice as clever as you, mate.

@10.21 - 'jail' has nothing to do with it, but as has been said, Person A's claims come down to whether there was a consensual relationship. Remember, it is the consent of the people involved which is required, not your consent.

Perhaps you'd be better dusting down your own Law for Dummies.

@10.39 - there are loads of reasons why people consent to things and regret and complain later - shame, pressure, revenge, etc.

We dont know if he attempted to conceal his actions. It has been alleged he did, but an allegation isn't the same as a fact. People conceal their actions for many reasons - affairs, worries about being falsely accused, sexually humiliated, etc.

It was alleged that Person A initially found it funny but that this turned to discomfort, but we don't know if she actually did. It has been alleged that he acted inappropriately, but we don't know if he did or she did. Remember, an allegation is not the same as a fact.

Not clear why he would tell colleagues or HR or your logic in implying that not doing so suggests lack of consent. You don't know whether Person A would have consented to him telling his colleagues or HR.

Not clear why he would tell colleagues or HR

You seem to think that working in a law firm is like being at school.

There are plenty of law firms that contractually oblige you to inform HR if you start a relationship with a colleague.  But you wouldn't know this, of course.  How could you?

Question Man out in full mad, incel form in this commentary. 

Oh no!  An idiot disagrees with me on the internet.

I must say something!

@10.40 - erm, read the nationals. Poor guy being named, and his poor family. Very unfair to only name one party.

@11.03 - we don't know much at all at the moment as the hearing hasn't finished yet and we haven't heard all the evidence.

@11.22 - sorry, the what?

@11.43 - we don't know yet if he's a #metoo victim or if his accusers are.

Anonymous 06 March 23 18:07

“You don't know whether Person A would have consented to him telling his colleagues or HR.” 

Such consent would not have been required. But you know that. You are arguing in bad faith. You are just an incel and apologist for people who engage in sexual harassment.

False allegations of sexual misconduct are very uncommon, thankfully.

[email protected] - his accusers made the DM too. They had the good fortune not to be named though due to the unfair way the process works.

@Olivefingers, 6th March - inappropriate actions are also too common for old women, old men and young men.

In your case I'm not sure that the senior partner's comments were sexually motivated, so probably no need to feel 'uncomfortable'.

@[email protected] - it sounded as if your copy of Law for Dummies had dust on it as you seemed not to understand the concept of consent.

If it was not dust, and was instead the residue of doritos which you were eating whilst on your chamber pot, we stand corrected.

I reckon Question Man is a member of RoF's editorial team.

When I was in my early 20s I had a few relationships and encounters with women in their mid 30s and one with a women in her 40s.  I learned a lot, enjoyed every single one and look back on them with gratitude.

But I didn't work for those women.

And they were sane.

What on earth was he thinking?

"There are plenty of consensual acts and behaviours that break rules and regulations, are illegal or even criminal."

Ahhh, R v Brown, brings back misty eyed memories of happier times on the rolling greens of Magdalen.

... and of reading some really quite eyewatering accounts of people beating panel pins through each others members, which they apparently did for pleasure and for a form of sexual gratification which I fail to entirely comprehend.

Anyway, panel pin bashing, ping pong ball throwing, it's all the same.

Off with all of their heads.

Whether they consent or not.

@[email protected] - says you, wanting to treat 18 year-olds like schoolchildren.

We dont know if they were in a relationship, whether they were contractually obliged to tell HR of any relationship, whether they did inform HR of any relationship, or whether any such contractual obligation is legally binding. But you don't know any of this. How could you? And it won't stop you deciding what happened without knowing.

@[email protected] - where? what commentary?

Incel is not ok. It is a sexist slur.

@[email protected] - you just did. What did they disagree with? Were they right to disagree? Who is the idiot?