ZKA was a partner at a law firm and attended two firm Christmas functions. He became highly intoxicated at both events and became “clearly out of control” as a result. He made a number of highly inappropriate comments while speaking to and about junior staff members. This included shouting demeaning and insulting statements about the summer clerks and others and the Tribunal noted he “totally failed to recognise the effect of the power imbalance between him and the junior members of staff”. ZKA also acted inappropriately by touching junior staff members, including putting his arm around a junior staff member known as Ms D and repeatedly kissing her on the head. He later danced in a sexualised way towards Ms D before being asked to leave the event by another partner.   

The Tribunal considered that the conduct was connected to the provision of regulated services as it occurred at parties hosted by the law firm which employed all the participants. One event occurred at the firm’s offices and the other commenced at the office before moving off site. The food and alcohol were paid for by the firm and the main purpose of the events was to promote positive relations amongst staff. The firm’s culture emphasised partner attendance at events and ZKA had previously had his remuneration reduced due to his lack of attendance. The summer clerks were not required to attend but understood that they should in order to secure employment as graduates.   

In terms of liability, the Tribunal noted that ZKA had previously been warned about his conduct when drinking by his fellow partners. He should have therefore been “sharply aware” of the risk he took in becoming so intoxicated and his conduct was “absolutely in reckless disregard of his obligations to treat colleagues and particularly junior employees with respect and courtesy”. The Tribunal was also left in “no doubt” that the conduct would be described as disgraceful and dishonourable by lawyers of good standing given the number of instances of deplorable verbal and physical conduct and the number of people targeted. It also noted that the conduct involved an abuse of power. It accepted that ZKA was not behaving in a strictly sexual manner, although his conduct had sexual elements to it. 

The Tribunal’s decision on penalty focused on the extent to which a lawyer’s rehabilitation should be taken into account when imposing a term of suspension. The Tribunal noted that it considered the misconduct was serious, but that ZKA had taken a number of steps to address the causes of his conduct. He had engaged in alcohol counselling and had been sober since October 2021, which the Tribunal heralded as “a significant achievement”. Other material demonstrated ZKA had made a full commitment to “discovering and dealing with the factors that led him to behave in what would seem like out of character and appalling conduct”. The Tribunal held that it was prepared to significantly reduce the period of suspension which ZKA might have otherwise faced to reflect his rehabilitative efforts. This reflected that one of the purposes of suspension in terms of opportunity for rehabilitation had been met and that ZKA was not a risk of reoffending as long as he remained abstinent from alcohol. The Tribunal held 15 months' suspension was appropriate. It also ordered a $5,000 harm payment to Ms D and ordered ZKA to pay costs.  

The Tribunal granted ZKA interim name suppression pending further order of the High Court or until the expiry of the appeal period.