Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer news, updates and analysis | Page 4 of 43

Former Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer partner Ryan Beckwith has filed a High Court appeal against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s (SDT) finding against him in a case of sexual misconduct.

The appeal follows last October’s high-profile judgment that Beckwith knew or ought to have known that the junior member of staff he had sexual activity with was intoxicated and her judgement impaired and that he knew or ought to have known that his conduct was inappropriate. 

Nick Brett, Beckwith’s solicitor at Brett Wilson, confirmed the appeal in a statement: ‘On Wednesday 19 February 2020, Mr Beckwith filed grounds to appeal against the decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal dated 30 January 2020 and it would not be appropriate to comment further pending the hearing in the High Court which will be listed in due course.’

Beckwith’s appeal comes after the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which brought the case to the Tribunal for prosecution in June 2018, earlier this week said it would not be appealing the sanctions handed down of a £35,000 fine and an order to pay legal costs of £200,000.

Earlier this month, the SDT released its written judgement explaining that the controversial decision to fine instead of ban Beckwith was because his misconduct was ‘a lapse in his judgement’ and ‘unlikely to be repeated’.

In the judgement, the SDT said that Beckwith’s misconduct did not pose a future risk to the public and that: ‘There had been no clients involved and there was no suggestion that the work of the respondent was anything other than highly competent. Nor did it consider that the respondent posed a future risk to the reputation of the profession,’ the judgment added.

The sanctions were made in light of the tribunal’s decision that ‘this was a one-off incident where there was no suggestion that he [Beckwith] had coerced or manipulated Person A [the junior lawyer]. It was not the applicant’s case that the respondent had deliberately plied Person A with drink with a view to getting her into such an intoxicated state that she would then engage in sexual activity.’

‘Nor was it the case that he had used his position of seniority and authority to engineer the sexual encounter,’ the decision added.

The tribunal found that, although Beckwith had ‘engaged in inappropriate conduct in circumstances where his judgement had been affected by the amount of alcohol he had consumed,’ it did not find that the circumstances of the case were such that a restriction order was necessary in order to protect the public.

nathalie.tidman@legalease.co.uk

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has decided not to appeal the sanctions handed to former Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer restructuring partner Ryan Beckwith by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) for misconduct last October.

The decision brings to a close a long-running and uncomfortable saga for the Magic Circle firm after Beckwith’s sexual activity with a junior member of his team was found to be in breach of principles two and six of the solicitors’ code of conduct, requiring solicitors to ‘act with integrity’ and ‘behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services’.

The tribunal handed Beckwith a £35,000 fine and ordered him to pay legal costs of £200,000 in connection with the incident that took place in 2016 after copious alcohol consumption at an after-work drinks.

The financial penalty was not the suspension some were expecting, although the loss of Beckwith’s job (he resigned from Freshfields the morning of the ruling) and question marks over his employability in the City are arguably the real penalties. Beckwith had been on indefinite leave from Freshfields since December 2017.

An SRA spokesperson said the regulator was committed to tackling the issue of sexual harassment: ‘We refer allegations of serious misconduct to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and it is they who reach findings and decide on sanctions. We are able to appeal their decisions if specific legal grounds are met. Following a review of the judgement in this case and having taken legal advice, we have decided not to appeal.’

Earlier this month, The SDT published its judgement explaining the reasons behind the sanctions, entitling the regulator to appeal the decision within 21 days. In the ruling, the SDT said that Beckwith’s misconduct ‘was caused by a lapse in his judgement that was highly unlikely to be repeated’ and did not find he posed a future risk to the public.

‘There had been no clients involved and there was no suggestion that the work of the respondent was anything other than highly competent. Nor did it consider that the respondent posed a future risk to the reputation of the profession,’ the judgment stated.

The partnership of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer last December voted in sweeping reforms to its handling of misbehaviour, including financial penalties, as a way of mitigating the #MeToo fallout.

The move to establish a conduct committee followed a consultation and implements new enforcement protocols that mean partners who receive a final warning about their behaviour could face an automatic fine equal to 20% of their profit share for 12 months. The model is similar to those that have been successfully rolled out elsewhere in professional services, such as accountancy and consultancy firms.

nathalie.tidman@legalease.co.uk

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s (SDT) controversial decision to fine instead of ban Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer partner Ryan Beckwith was because his misconduct was ‘a lapse in his judgement’ and ‘unlikely to be repeated’.

The SDT published today (4 Feburary) its judgment detailing its full reasons after the tribunal last October fined Beckwith £35,000 and ordered him to pay costs of £200,000 for engaging in sexual activity with a junior female colleague in circumstances in which she was ‘intoxicated to the extent that her judgement was impaired’.

In the ruling, the SDT said that Beckwith’s misconduct ‘was caused by a lapse in his judgement that was highly unlikely to be repeated’ and did not find he posed a future risk to the public.

‘There had been no clients involved and there was no suggestion that the work of the respondent was anything other than highly competent. Nor did it consider that the respondent posed a future risk to the reputation of the profession,’ the judgment added.

The sanctions were made in light of the tribunal’s decision that ‘this was a one-off incident where there was no suggestion that he [Beckwith] had coerced or manipulated Person A [the junior lawyer]. It was not the applicant’s case that the respondent had deliberately plied Person A with drink with a view to getting her into such an intoxicated state that she would then engage in sexual activity.’

‘Nor was it the case that he had used his position of seniority and authority to engineer the sexual encounter,’ the decision adds.

The tribunal found that, although Beckwith had ‘engaged in inappropriate conduct in circumstances where his judgement had been affected by the amount of alcohol he had consumed,’ it did not find that the circumstances of the case were such that a restriction order was necessary in order to protect the public.

It describes the fine of £35,000 as ‘appropriate and proportionate in all the circumstances’.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which referred Beckwith to the SDT for prosecution in late June 2018, is weighing whether to appeal the decision.

An SRA spokesperson said: ‘We are reviewing the judgment and will then decide on next steps. We have 21 days from today, publication day, to lodge any appeal, if there is one.’

In October, the tribunal found Beckwith’s behaviour was in breach of principles two and six of the solicitors’ code of conduct, requiring solicitors to ‘act with integrity’ and ‘behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services’.

nathalie.tidman@legalease.co.uk