The matter was reported to the New Zealand Law Society Te Kāhui Ture o Aotearoa by a partner of the firm, in their capacity as ‘designated lawyer’ for the firm and pursuant to rr 2.8 and 11.4 of the Rules. 

The lawyer urged the Committee to consider his behaviour in context, stating that more freedom must be allowed for conduct at an out of office social function than during the usual working day. While the lawyer generally accepted that some of his behaviour was inappropriate, that he had blurred professional boundaries, and had consumed excess alcohol that night, he did not view that this was a breach of professional standards or an abuse of power towards Employee A and/or B.  

The lawyer submitted that slapping Employee A on the bottom was “paying [him] respect” and “blokey” and that he was behaving as a friend rather than a partner in the firm. The Committee sees absolutely no circumstance in which physical contact of this type towards any colleague could be described as respectful behaviour. The Committee also considers this behaviour risks perpetuating a workplace culture that the profession is at pains to transform in relation to interactions between colleagues.   

The lawyer also accepted that he placed his hand on Employee B’s lower back as she passed through a door. In his view, doing so was “an innocuous courtesy” and he intended “nothing sexual or sinister” by it.  The Committee does not ascribe any sexual intent to the lawyer’s actions but found it was clear that Employee B was uncomfortable at the time and afterwards. The Committee considers that physical touch on the lower back carries an element of intimacy and overfamiliarity that may reasonably have been interpreted by Employee B or a reasonable observer as inappropriate. While there are some contexts in which this would be acceptable to both parties involved, it is likely to be perceived as flirtatious and inappropriate in others. The Committee did not consider that this was appropriate in this context.  

The lawyer’s evidence is that Employee B approached him to show him a team photograph on her phone, and he assumed her reason for doing so was for him to comment on the photo. Referring to the photo, the lawyer commented that Employee B was “beautiful” and says that in this context it was not intended to be disrespectful or discourteous. The Committee accepts that Employee B was anticipating a comment on the group photo but not that she was inviting a comment on her own appearance to the exclusion of others (when there was nothing to draw attention to her over any other team member in the photo). The Committee does not accept the lawyer’s position that the comment was respectful and courteous in the context, and it is clear that Employee B did not experience it this way.  

The Committee considers it more likely than not that the lawyer’s judgement as to what was appropriate was impaired. When coupled with his admitted blurring of professional boundaries, his consumption of alcohol meant he was not well placed to exercise the judgment required of him. While the Committee did not identify a specific abuse of any power imbalance this does not mean that such an imbalance did not exist by virtue of their roles as partner and junior members of staff. 

The Committee considers that the team social function, including ongoing socialising which occurred after the formal portion of the function, was a professional collegial occasion. On the principles established in NSC1 v Gardner-Hopkins [2021] NZLCDT 21, and most recently reinforced in National Standards Committee (No 2) v ZKA [2025] NZLCDT 18, the Committee is of the view that the lawyer’s conduct was not unconnected to the provision of regulated services.  

The Committee finds that the lawyer’s conduct across the three incidents demonstrated conduct towards Employees A and B that was disrespectful and discourteous, in breach of Rule 10.1, and a failure to maintain and promote professional standards through a blurring of professional boundaries, in breach of Rule 10. The Committee considers that the conduct is best captured by a finding under s 12(b)(ii) of the Act, in that the lawyer’s actions was generally “conduct that would be regarded by lawyers of good standing as being unacceptable” and “unprofessional”. Due to mitigating factors present in this case the Committee did not consider it necessary to impose any penalty.  

The Committee views that publishing a summary of this matter will have educational value by highlighting to the profession the ongoing importance of lawyers maintaining professional boundaries, and that inappropriate behaviours in the context of social team functions may result in a disciplinary response.