Mr H was a sole practitioner and began watching pornography at work due to personal stressors. Although he would click out of the images when staff entered the premises, his staff (who were all women) were repeatedly confronted with pornographic material.  Mr H did not have policies in place to prevent and protect staff from unacceptable conduct (as required by r 11.2 of the Rules of Conduct and Client Care) but certified to the Law Society that he did. The conduct began in 2016 and in November 2022 the staff confronted him about the images. Mr H promised to seek help for his addiction but failed to uphold it, and staff were again exposed to the material. Mr H initially denied that he had resumed viewing the material but later accepted he had relapsed.  

Mr H admitted the charge and described his own conduct as “egregious.”  The Tribunal found that Mr H recklessly contravened his obligations by exposing his staff to pornographic material and creating a “toxic and emotionally unsafe” work environment. The Tribunal considered that Mr H must have been aware of his staff being able to view the content and found his lack of thought about the effect of his conduct “remarkably obtuse.” His compulsion to engage in the conduct did not prevent him from realising the material was repeatedly on display to employees. The Tribunal determined that this was an ongoing failure to observe a reasonable duty of care to his employees and was satisfied that his conduct would likely be regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by lawyers of good standing.  

The Tribunal found that the conduct was aggravated by its duration. It considered there was little force in the argument that Mr H’s staff had an obligation to raise issues with his conduct. The Tribunal noted the power imbalance at play, which would reasonably cause staff anxiety about the adverse effects of making a report.  The Tribunal assessed the gravity against the understandable distaste it caused his employees and found that the repetitive pattern of recklessness meant the conduct was arguably more serious than an incident of fleeting, unwelcome, drunken fondling. 

In terms of penalty, the Tribunal noted that the misconduct was born from addiction and commended the rehabilitative steps that Mr H had taken to address this. It noted that Mr H was no longer practising, nor did it seem likely that he would practise in the future. However, the Tribunal considered a suspension was still appropriate to mark the severity of his conduct and send a deterrent message to the profession.  It held that a suspension of three months was appropriate but noted it would have been longer if Mr H was still practising. In addition to this, Mr H was censured, prohibited from practising on his own account, directed to compensate the complainants $5,000 and ordered to pay costs. 

Mr H was declined permanent name suppression, but there is an interim suppression order in place until midday on 5 December 2025.