Excessive Court docket had overturned choice to positive former Freshfields associate
The solicitors’ watchdog won’t attraction the ruling within the high-profile disciplinary case involving former Freshfields associate Ryan Beckwith, it was introduced on Monday.
Beckwith had been fined £35,000 and ordered to pay prices of £200,000 after a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal discovered he had did not act with integrity in his relationship with a junior colleague. The discovering was overturned by the High Court final month.
It had been alleged that Beckwith had engaged in sexual exercise with the junior solicitor and knew or should have identified that she was intoxicated to the extent her judgement was impaired.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which introduced the prosecution towards Beckwith, has now confirmed in an announcement that it’ll not attraction the ruling following recommendation from main counsel.
SRA board chair Anna Bradley took what she described as “the bizarre step” of commenting on the case given the widespread debate it has generated.
She mentioned that the case had been correctly introduced — and licensed by the tribunal — on proof gathered in response to a “severe” criticism, including:
“We welcome the courtroom’s agency affirmation that our rules of appearing with integrity and upholding public confidence adjust to human rights requirements by offering the mandatory diploma of authorized certainty, and that ‘widespread sense dictates’ that these rules are entitled to succeed in right into a solicitor’s private life.”
“We additionally welcome the readability of the courtroom’s affirmation that the general public is entitled to count on that junior employees and members of the occupation are handled with respect by extra senior colleagues. Solicitors should not, because the courtroom emphasised, ‘take unfair benefit of others’ whether or not in knowledgeable or private capability.
“In overturning the tribunal’s choice, the courtroom expressly restricted itself to the circumstances of this case. Our case didn’t depend upon the problem of consent. Quite, we argued that the circumstances indicated vulnerability and abuse of a place of seniority and authority. These and another key info weren’t discovered proved by the tribunal. The courtroom’s judgment was based mostly on and restricted to the appliance of our rules to the findings of reality made by the tribunal on this case.”
Bradley concluded: “I wish to emphasise that allegations of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment are issues that we take very critically and can proceed to behave upon.”