....reminds me of the good old days in the 00s when i reported a partner for an attempted rape and I was given training about how to handle him better

He doesn't just deny it, he EMPHATICALLY denies it.

That's OK then.

Christmas time, mistletoe and wine,
You've got questions, I've got mine,
What are the allegations, who is this "KC"?
Are we sure there has been any iniquity?

Other partners back him, so does the SRA,
How can we believe a word women say?
The regulator, says no evidence to see,
Shouldn't we take Carter Ruck very seriously?!

Question time! (Silence complaints!)
Mistletoe and wine! (both obligatory!)
You've got questions! I've got mine!
Let's put out the fires, see the wood not the tree,
and pour doubt on the results of an enquiry.

Question time! (Question time!)
Repeat to fade...

@anon at 08.41

I empathise. Late 00s I made a complaint about sexual harassment when I was working in admin for a firm. I was told to stop wearing short skirts to the office.

He did it again a couple years later to the daughter of someone senior on work experience. Then they took it more seriously, obviously.

BDB culture Horizon culture now this. Why would anyone work at this immoral firm or want to join or instruct them ?

This man sounds like an ideal candidate for the Slater & Gordon Summer Boat Party, Sign Here Sir.

All them women were asking 4 it

Witches I tell ya

Witches out 2 get me

I worked in the Newcastle office about eight years ago and one partner had 29 secretaries in three years. They kept quitting if they had to work with him.

Yet that wasn’t sufficient for the management to spot something was wrong.

🥇 led on worst miscarriage of justice in UK history
🥈 partner who 💩 himself on night out
🥉 touchy feely partner allowed to get away with it for years

Can we have a special category for Wombles in this year’s awards?

The new Post Office documentary will be interesting

Partners like Mr Y have an overinflated sense of worth, hence they think behaviour like the stuff reported is fine. They don't like it when they get caught out. Bye bye, don't slam the door on your way out.

I hear 3 senior female partners have quit on the past month. Wonder what is making them leave?

I know for a fact that, separately to Mr Y, another partner “voluntarily left” Wombles having sexually assaulted a junior. That particular partner IS currently under investigation by the SRA.

Keep us updated on this one - interesting the SRA refused to investigate. Would be interesting to know the truth.

I bet some Wombles lawyers still won’t speak up about the problems within the firm. They act like a cult, unwilling to acknowledge the very obvious problems.

Bad stuff but it seems that the Firm took the allegations seriously and acted decisively.

@8.41 - it is always advisable to report matters such as attempted rape to the police and not the firm.

I used to work in the Newcastle office and the gossip there was that this incident is by no means the worst. Think Weinstein and a mass cover up with payouts all round. Ssshhhhh….

Presumably the SRA will not investigate as it's a partner. If it was a non-partner, they'd be all over it.

Tip of iceberg

So it’s so serious that he’s been ejected from the partnership, but not so serious the Head of Legal and Enforcement at the Solicitors Regulation Authority thinks he should investigate?

Did the SRA refuse to investigate (unlikely) or is it that the victims couldn’t face another investigation (probably because they work in a toxic man culture and have no support).

@Scep Tick - that all depends on whether or not the allegations are true.

Interesting take on the story. What ROF hasn't detailed is how Mr Y was [ROF: various colourful allegations]

@10.01 - can we be sure that there has ever been a true allegation?

Like, in history and stuff?

Anonymous 15 December 23 10:01

@Scep Tick - that all depends on whether or not the allegations are true.

That ship has sailed; no such thing as false allegations anymore.

@9.07 - indeed, there is some doubt about the allegations, enough to get you singing. What are the questions you should be asking?

Calling women raising serious allegations “hysterical” - we’re not in the 1800s and don’t need to be treated as such. You wouldn’t put your career on the line and raise such allegations if there wasn’t truth to it.

HR been turning a blind eye to all sorts of inappropriate behaviour not just sexual at Wombles. HR just do what partners tell them even if wrong.

Not being funny - but either a) the allegations are true and you're well shot of this guy, or b) the allegations are false but at least 3 people found this person sufficiently repugnant that they hatched a plan for get rid of him (and presumably there was a degree of corroborating witness evidence). I suspect if the person is THAT unpopular that there could be a massive conspiracy where a meaningful number of people in the firm have aligned to get rid of him, you're probably also well shot of him.

Although very serious and should not happen these things do and no excuse. That in itself is troubling but as troubling is the reaction of the Wombles board and partners who tried to keep this guy. Reason? Turkeys Christmas.

@9.09 - what was the 'sexual harassment' you complained of? You could always raise the complaint (and alleged response) with the firm now.

Have not the Wombles done enough this year to bring disgrace to the legal profession?

@9.16 - what immoral firm?

The lesson from this is don't attend Christmas parties at your firm or any other, unless you are a teetotaller.

Your Womble image depicts female Wombles in the Boardroom. We don't have any females left in the Boardroom after the appalling way this was handled....

@Johnny - what happened at the Slater and Gordon summer boat party and what does it have to do with the allegations here?

The firm did the right thing removing him - shocked that the SRA haven't investigated him. Partner Y in desperation clearly provided a statement because the article smacks that he's tried to rubbish the investigation and discredit those involved - shame on him. Hope his name comes out in the wash soon.

The fellas name is being banded about in the local market. Trial by other partners. If he had any sense he would push back on what they’re saying about him.

@9.18 - what witches are out to get you?

@11.05 "Three of the female junior lawyers lodged complaints, all of which were upheld by the independent KC"

Why on earth would you care so much about his name and reputation?

@Womble Achievements - what partner on a night out, and why do you think its a source of shame? What touchy feely partner? Were they male or female?

@Drama - why?

@11.32, are you really arguing that someone getting so drunk they 💩 themselves shouldn’t be seen as a source of shame?

At Wombles shame is a nuanced concept, but I had thought we at least agreed on this issue.

@9.26 - what partners like Mr Y?

I like Mr Y!

@09.29 - what evidence do you have that 3 senior partners have left in the past month? How man male partners left in the last month? Why did the female partners leave? Why did the male partners leave?

@Colin 15 December 23 10:14 - exactly: as a matter of law, the findings of fact by the KC that Mr Y sexually harassed the victims are now objective truths.

@CityBond - where can we see evidence of a criminal conviction for this sexual assault?

@Womble Cult - what obvious problems? Do speak up!

@9.41 - although of course we don't know if the allegations are true.

@Womblingfree - what was the worst? What evidence is there of payments and cover-ups all round, or is it indeed just unfounded rumour?

So funny when Wombles PR just don't get it and make things even worse.

Womble HR working overtime on the comments/likes again. Maybe consider why you keep ending up in this position

Agreed, I’ve also heard all about this too….

Anonymous @ 12:32 - given it takes something like 4 years from report to conviction I expect it’s coming in a few years… the findings of the indie KC investigation however are findings of fact as others have pointed out

@12.01 - what position are you in to judge them until you have walked a mile in their thoroughly soiled, dung crusted shoes?

@9.54 - actually the evidence shows that the SRA investigates and names male partners very frequently, while not naming their accusers, making their processes automatically unfair.

@skeletons in cupboard - what is the rest of the iceberg?

@CityBond, suggest you take the blinkers off. Accusing someone of something doesn’t automatically make it true. Or perhaps you work on the Post Office matter and forgot that part.

A senior partner went completely off the radar a few months back - to the point we couldn't even say his name no more - this makes complete sense now!!

@JoeyBarton - if a KC during an investigation finds that you did something wrong, then no amount of emphatic denial is going to save your greasy bacon.

@The Goldilocks Zone - or to put it another way its not serious enough for the SRA to investigate but the partners think they need to vote him out.

Wombles need to look in the mirror and clean up their act. No wonder the women won’t work there. Some class acts have left recently that’s a fact.

His defence - ‘they’re hysterical women m’lud’ sounds like a classic of the genre

@Postmanpat - the SRA didn't see fit to investigate. The fact that the firm brought in a KC and voted out the accused partner somewhat blows a hole in your theory that the complainants lacked support.

What were the 'inappropriate phrases'? How were the women 'uncomfortable', what does that mean? 'Uncomfortable' is a pejorative buzzword which is often thrown in to this type of allegation.

Problem is Wombles are in denial. A big tidal wave is coming their way. 

@10.10 - we can, however, be sure that there have been untrue allegations.

HR and PR Wombles rather than spending your time in here why don't you work out what is going wrong and try help fix it rather than defend the indefensible.

City Bond - no offence, but you have no idea what you’re talking about. If, for example, said KC was negligent, exceeded their remit and was the subject of a BSB investigation, I’m not so sure your theory, and indeed your muck-spreading, would stand up to a whole lot of scrutiny.

Dear Wombles HR team

Investigating an allegation is your duty. This doesn’t amount to supporting the victims and ‘job done’. Jeeez

USA reputation taking a pounding from their UK antics this year

@Colin - that is a false allegation. Unfortunately, false allegations are very uncommon when it comes to sexual misconduct.

@10.19 - although of course there is no evidence that anyone was called 'hysterical'. And nobody puts their career on the line by making allegations these days - we're not in the 1800s. People make untrue allegations all the time. We simply don't know whether these allegations were true or not.

@CityBond: naïve.

@HR shame - what inappropriate behaviour, sexual or otherwise?

We know the allegations are true because the KC found them as a fact to be true. As a matter of law, it is now an objective truth that Mr Y committed sexual harassment.

How the hell are these muppets um Wombles still in business after this year?

I'd hazard a guess that if this firm still exists in its present form a year from now, it will be known by an entirely different name, in the UK anyway. I can't imagine that their American cousins are in the least impressed.

Anyone know if WBD HR are being paid overtime for these comments? Cheeky Christmas bonus maybe?

Board reshuffle makes sense now. Get your token women in to try and sanitise the image.

@10.33 - or maybe the reason was a lack of evidence. What's it got to do with turkeys and Christmas?

@10.35 - what else have they done?

not sure Wombles will care. Given their approach to Horizon if their bottom line is untouched they can handle a few cock ups 

@17.06 - I can confirm from unfortunate, horrific, first hand experience that you are talking utter bollocks. These psychos do exist.

Anonymous 15 December 23 10:19 - yes, the evidence is clear that part of Mr Y’s defence was that the women were hysterical. As you say, the victims would not have put their careers on the line unless the allegations were true - as indeed they were found to be by the KC.

@Shaw GE - if you're male, that is.

It used to be part of the job description at blm..and not just once a year at xmas.

@10.56 - appalling way it was handled? So you're saying he shouldn't have been voted out?

@Bush Tucker Man - he is, he's taking them to court!

@Jonny Walker - "lots of partners felt very strongly that there wasn't enough evidence". Why do you care so much about damaging his name and reputation?

The total fee paid to WBD between the financial years 2013–14 to 2022–23, was £37,498,000 according to a Post Office FOI. Good money, well spent I’m sure you’ll agree.

@Womble Achievements @12.01 - would you say that if they were female?

It happened at my firm a few years ago. He was suspended for 3 months. Then promoted this year. You can’t make this up.

@[email protected] - of course you do - he was cleared of all wrongdoing by his regulator!

@[email protected] - what law says that allegations are true without a trial? Remember, an allegation is not the same as a fact!

@Wombles PR/Ban the Wombles - what comments are 'Wombles PR' or 'Wombles HR'?

Given that the partner was voted out.

Sounds like you believe he was innocent.

The title of the article is wrong. The partner was expelled for sexually harassing junior lawyers - not allegedly. The findings of the KC are findings of fact, that Mr Y sexually harassed the junior lawyers concerned. A finding of fact is treated in law as an objective truth until such time as it is set aside.

@Anonymous 15 December 23 10:19
Even worse that the word ‘hysterical’ used by a source was a woman.