Partner fined for song about trainee's genitals

Keats 650

^{A modern-day Keats in full flow}

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has fined a partner for singing a song to a trainee about her ladyparts, after a festive work lunch.

The partner and trainee, who are not named in the tribunal's judgment, attended the firm's Christmas lunch in 2017, followed by drinks at another location.

At the second venue, the trainee (known as Person A) recorded a video showing the partner singing a song, with the lyrics: “[Person A’s] vagina is lovely. I like it. It likes it up the arse but also in the vag”.

The romantic poet accompanied his insightful lyrics with gestures of "moving his right fist upwards at the start of the song" and "subsequently cupping his right hand and moving it twice in front of his genitals for the latter part."

The trainee submitted a formal complaint to the firm around 18 months later, in June 2019, which contained a number of grievances including the song captured on video. The firm launched an internal investigation.

At the SDT hearing, the panel noted other interactions between the partner and trainee: the two had only met once in person prior to the party, emails between them were "informal and jokey" and the tribunal found that they likely "communicated in the same friendly and jokey manner in person." The tribunal also noted that the partner was 4 years older than the trainee.

Regarding the video, the partner argued that he had sang the song in response to a challenge by the trainee to say something "outrageous" or words to that effect. However, Person A denied this.

The tribunal said it found it “difficult” to reconcile this evidence given that the offending video started as soon as the partner began singing Person A’s name and ended as soon as he stopped. A multimedia forensic scientist’s expert evidence (which was unchallenged) was that the video had been “trimmed”, although Person A denied this.

The tribunal said that, on the balance of probabilities, it was not satisfied that the partner had "launched into the offending song unprovoked and absent any interaction with Person A immediately prior to so doing”.

“His misconduct was spontaneous and reactive to the same," said the tribunal. "However, the words used, the gestures that elected to deploy, the fact that he was a partner, at a work event, with colleagues present and in a public setting represented a grave breach of his position of trust.”

The tribunal said that the partner's likely drunken state "did not vitiate the direct control" that he had in response to such an "invitation" to say something "naughty/outrageous".

The panel held that while the partner did not intend to cause harm, it was “eminently foreseeable” that his “very serious” misconduct would do so.

The tribunal fined the partner £23,000 and ordered that he pay costs of £22,800.

LU icon Let top firms and companies ping your app when they like you for a role. Keep an ear to the ground with LawyerUp, available on the App Store or Google Play.

Comments

Why isn’t the firm mentioned in this instance?

The other serious conduct question is how did costs reach nearly £23k?!

The fact that the trainee trimmed the video and reported it nearly 2 years later is suspicious…

Not clear why the SDT are involved. It was intended as banter given their previous relationship but she felt he went too far. Happens often. Apology shpuld suffice.

This is disgusting and yet another poster gets to pay a fine and suffer no other consequence of its grotesque behaviour. Say something "outrageous" doesn't mean sing a song about sexually assaulting the trainee.

What is the world coming to when you can’t sing endearingly about your trainees.

This is not an SDT matter. I know what happened, she was part of the banter. He sang a silly rugby song and substituted her name but they were not strangers. An edited and shopped version of the clip then turns up, but missing the context that led up to him singing the song.

“[Person A’s] vagina is lovely. I like it. It likes it up the arse but also in the vag”.

Yeah, well, how can you even be sure that Person A had a vagina?

Is it not reasonably likely that they could have been a transpolyamorousfluid with triple souls person, absent of all recognisably human genitalia at all?

@9.00 - yes, plus the £23k fine. Wonder if this will get appealed and Beckwithed.

Another reminder if one were needed that what seems funny when in drink might not look so good under forensic examination (and might cost you £46,000).

Big fine under the circs but the tribunal seems to have been pretty grown up in its decision.

Was the trainee drunk as well?

Ridiculous.

The trainee clearly fell out with the partner 18 months later and wanted to find ways to complain. Why would she record the song if she had not requested an outrageous song about her?

They even found the banter between them was informal and jokey. Guessing they had a relationship which went tits up.

“…a silly rugby song…”

Should’ve doubled the fine.

So was the complaint submitted when Person A found that she wasn't getting an NQ position?

The partner sounds like my sort of chap!

Obviously an SRA/SDT matter. The partner deserved to be fined.

Who thought that song was a good idea in 2007 let alone 2017 or 2023? I'm very far from joyless but the partner showed serious lack of judgment. I'm a bit surprised by those saying the time delay is suspicious given the serious power imbalance.

This article is an incel's paradise for commentary. I see that the odious Question Man is already out in force, pretending to be multiple people. Time for RoF to require accounts and more actively control what is said. The commentary section is at the moment a refuge for apologists for bad behaviour, and those who want to engage in silly, bad faith, tit for tat exchanges.

@Anonymous 12 May 23 09:49 - doubtful this will be appealed. The tribunal plainly arrived at the right decision.

@Ofcourseitwasafine - read hmm

I recall a senior partner devoting part of his speech at the firm's annual dinner to describing an associate's breasts. Australia in the 1990s.

Another example of giving the legal profession a bad name.

@10.28 - how can you hear the words in the article? Faceplant doh!

@10.31 - why do you think its obviously an SDT/SRA matter? Why do you think the partner deserved to be fined?

@10.49 - incel is not ok, it is a sexist slur. If Rof required accounts and activity control you wouldn't be able to comment. What apologists for bad behaviour, and those who want to engage in silly, bad faith, tit for tat exchanges?

@10.50 - yes, it is likely to be appealed. Yes, it was the wrong decision.

@10.56 - it doesn't give the legal profession a bad name. Just her and you.

@9.44 - ...or flirt with Partners!

@Paul - we don't know if the trainee was drunk, or whether this will cost the partner anything.

Sadly, anon 12 May 23 10:49 has already been proved right by the pathological nonsense of Anonymous 12 May 23 11:14.

"The commentary section is at the moment a refuge for apologists for bad behaviour, and those who want to engage in silly, bad faith, tit for tat exchanges."

... and here you are.

It’s worth reading the actual judgment on this case. The context is really interesting, including the trainee’s behaviour throughout and raising this as a complaint as part of a wider issue about not being kept on as a NQ some time later. This is not victim shaming as the partner was wrong to sing this song but underpinning sexual harassment is whether such conduct is unwanted and also the wider context of the behaviour, so it’s interesting that the SRA clearly has a reach which goes far far beyond what the law protects.

Anonymous 12 May 23 11:14 - u ok hun.

Don’t understand why Anonymous 12 May 23 11:14 is talking about plants in someone’s face.

@11.22 - how can you be sure that my nonsense is pathological?

Is it not equally likely that I might be intoxicated to the point of insensibility as a result of chronic alcoholism and glue-sniffing by this point of the morning?

A pattern of behaviour which I repeated week after week in a grinding and ultimately fatal cycle of addiction?

@11.22 - in what way? What 'pathological nonsense?

@11.25 - and where who are?

@11.28 - the question is are you?

@9.54 - yes, very high. The tribunal seems to have been immature in its decision.

@11.30 - but do you understand why @10.28 thinks they can hear the words in the article?

It woyld interesting if the victim waived his anonymity to tell the whole story and talk about the ridiculous fine.

@Bentine's - or fine the trainee!

@11.32 - we don't know if the nonsense is pathological, or indeed if there is any nonsense at all.

Nor do we know if it is equally likely that anyone is intoxicated to the point of insensibility as a result of chronic alcoholism and glue-sniffing by this point of the morning?

A pattern of behaviour which anyone repeated week after week in a grinding and ultimately fatal cycle of addiction?

Anonymous 12 May 23 11:38 - u ok hun.

@Private Practice - what might not seem a good idea to us might not reasonably seem a bad idea to others, regardless of the year. Whether he or she made a lack of judgement, its clearly not a regulatory matter. Time delays should always at least be questioned. And remember, the 'serious power imbalance' is in favour of the trainee.

@Spence - spot on

anon 12 May 23 10:50 - spot on.

What an idiot.

It doesn't matter what convoluted or Machiavellian preamble to the event occurred - let your imagination run to the worst excesses of Game of Thrones if you want.

I'm amazed that it needs saying out loud.

If you speak (never mind sing) about a colleague's genitals at a work gathering there will be unpleasant consequences.

If it's taken this story for you to realise that then you should probably look for a new job as a holiday rep on an island in the Mediterranean.

@12.03 - the question is are you?

How and why do these absolute losers with zero capacity to exercise their better judgement keep getting elevated? This profession seems to still be chock-full of embarrassing gimps. And these comments sections are always brimming with odious twats running to their defence. Creeps.

Toby's got a Green Sword 12 May 23 12:48 - spot on and anyone arguing to the contrary is doing so in bad faith.

@12.30 - what was?

It was a stupid sexist song, but she had dared him and encouraged him to sing it. Turns out she was recording it all along. A carefully edited version of the clip then turns up 18 months later after she doesn’t get offered an NQ position. Isn’t it obvious what is going on here?

@13.03 - what evidence do you have that I am odious?

Can you prove beyond all reasonable doubt that I am, in fact, a twat?

How can you be sure that it is embarrassing to be a gimp?

And another thing.

Stop shagging (or trying to shag) the help.

If you only feel confident enough to impress a woman after she's been dazzled by displays of competence and authority in a work context then go do some pro bono or voluntary work and bang another volunteer.

And no. I don't mean Pro Bono. That can still count as billable and is connected with work. You sexually incontinent age inappropriate, unhealthy power relationship weirdos need to keep your sex lives well away from work.

Go do some voluntary work with an organisation right out of your usual orbit. That way when the sh!t does down and they ask you to leave you might get away with it - as long as you don't do something so odd or unacceptable that you end up in court.

Anon 12 May 23 13:15

Not really. There are so many possibilities.

What do YOU think is going on?

She made him do it?

He has Tourettes?

The firm promoted a moron?

There's a certain kind of 30-something with a pathological need to impress women in their late teens and early 20s.

Why are so many of them partners at law firms?: And why do they end up making asses of themselves?

The bar is so low it might as well be in hell. Whatever happened to impulse control, to basic self-discipline?

When I was at school (and this was a state school) I remember a teacher telling us that the difference between a man and a boy was that a man was in control of his own body and a boy let his body control him (nb it was a single sex school).

The idea that a partner would sing a song about a trainee's vagina.... *shocked face*

I find it incomprehensible. i don't care how drunk he was. And why didn't anyone tell him to be quiet and call a taxi to take him home?

Sounds like an absolute sh!t show. There should be difficult questions being asked all over that partnership or else this time next year it'll be happening again.

@Anonymous 12 May 23 14:27 - spot on.

@Toby 12.48 - you need to know the full context of their relationship before saying that

@Toby 13.10 - bad faith to agree with your own comments

@Toby 14.12 - we don't know if they were snagging one another or wanted to

@Toby 14.16 - just because she flirted with a partner doesn't make her a sexually incontinent age inappropriate unhealthy power relationship weirdo. People are free to date people from work if they want.

Anon@14:27 - Agreed though in this instance the SDT specifically references the fact the partner's only 4 years older than the trainee (so either he's a wunderkind or, more likely, she's late 20s/early 30s) so less of the typical age/power dynamic in play

Good to see everyone enjoying themselves again, I could hear the fear and anxiety at one point. I was going to offer 100 people my therapist's help.

@Sigh - there is no evidence that the trainee is a gimp.

What comments?

What evidence is there that commenters are twats or creeps?

Anonymous 12 May 23 15:12: why do say they were "snagging" one another. They aren't in the construction industry and neither of them is a building. Faceplant doh!

Anonymous 12 May 23 13:52 - brilliant! The best mocking of Question Man so far.

These comments…it really doesn’t matter what the context was, either this guy is an absolute creep or so totally lacking in judgement that he deserves the fine as a timely reminder not to be a complete moron.

So when a junior dares a partner to do something really stupid and unprofessional in public the options are :

1. Do it

2. Don’t do it.

but apparently option 2 wasn’t available ?

@Old days- what happened when you complained about it?

Stephen Merchant's twin on your radio. Mr Price loves it, so so much.

@14.25 - what are all the possibilities?

We think it was a flirtatious relationship and maybe she got embarrassed and used the SDT as tools to get revenge.

If he had Tourettes singing the song does that mean she had Tourettes grassing him up for singing it?

We don't know if the trainee got promoted or is a moron.

@15.05 - they're both as bad as each other. But its a personal matter between them. Not our business or that of the regulator.

@15.08 - what was?

@15.43 - yes, but let's not let the 4 year age gap get in the way of misandric tropes.

And the typical age/dynamic is that there is a mutual imbalance of power.

It's only a song.

Trump's done worse and he's been president.

Don't people say that even if you don't respect the person you should respect the orifice?

@FraudSquad - help for what?

@17.28 - what does "why do say" mean? Faceplant doh!

The partner is entirely in the wrong and she isn’t to blame at all. The imbalance of power is due to the influence he has over her, not the other way around. It is right that the regulator got involved as this is plainly a matter of professional conduct on his part. Which is precisely why the regulator got involved and he was fined.

Anonymous 12 May 23 09:27 - why are you talking about “shpuld”? Faceplant doh!

@18.02 - what was?

@18.18 - context is everything here. If everyone who exhibited lack of judgement was fined there would be a lot of poor people. Anyone who thinks someone should be fined £45k for singing a song probably needs a fine themselves as a timely reminder not to be a complete moron.

Toby's got a Green Sword 12 May 23 12:48 - the most sensible comment so far.

@ Anonymous 12 May 23 20:31

They're nothing like one another. You can actually see his stupid from space.

Don't people say that even if you don't respect the person you should respect the orifice?

It's the Office. They say you should respect the Office.

@18.43 - 1 and 2 were options. What wasn't an option is for the partner to complain about it later on.

@Higson - loves what?

@5.08 - it was only a song and he thought she'd find it funny.

Why is Anonymous 12 May 23 11:38 talking about “woyld”? Faceplant doh!

Remember that the balance of professional power is in favour of the partner. He is a partner; she is a trainee.

One wonders if this actually happened.

It's absolute nonsense that peeps can post without an actual user name.

This Anon 2.15 pm etc nonsense needs to end.

And Maffew, you need to get over yourself and give me my account back.

It really doesn't matter if they were having an affair at the time.

A partner shouldn't be having an affair with a trainee anyway. And if he is, drunken foreplay at the firm's Xmas do should result in instant dismissal, never mind a fine, if only for the embarrassment caused to everyone witnessing it.

What a loser.

He got off lightly imo. If I was in that partnership I'd want him out.

The public are more concerned about solicitors' charging practices rather than their song-singing. Embarrassing waste of time and money.

@[email protected] - they are both as bad as one another, even though the trainee is female. There is a mutual imbalance of power due to the influence they have over one another. It is wrong that the regulator got involved as this is plainly not a matter of professional conduct on either of their parts. It deflects from serious matters. Which is precisely why the regulator got involved and he was fined.

Anonymous 14 May 23 16:05: spot on.

Anonymous 13 May 23 11:51: but this isn’t about song-singing per se, as you well know. It’s about a song which discussed the trainee’s genitals. Which is why the SRA intervened and why the SDT fined the partner. The public would be pleased with this outcome.

@Anonymous 14 May 23 08:22 - u ok hun.

@[email protected] - yes, the comments @15.12 on 12th were the most sensible so far.

@[email protected] - you can see faults on her side.

What does 'his stupid' mean? Are you in outer space?

@[email protected] - if they say it, the office and the Office sound the same! Faceplant doh!

[email protected] - why do you think the comments are talking to you? Faceplant doh!

[email protected] - Remember that the balance of professional power is in favour of the trainee. She is a trainee; he is a partner.

For the record 11:03 is right.

I am pleased with this outcome.

He’s been done up like a kipper

[email protected] - so you're saying the trainee was in the wrong to have an affair? Was the trainee drunk? Should she have been dismissed if so? Why do you think the trainee is a loser? If you were in the partnership would you want her out?