One of the charges included Gardner-Hopkins putting his arm around one of the clerks in a tight clasp, moving his hand on her bottom, then kissing her on the cheek.
In my view this is not so dissimilar to a June 2022 UK case where a trainee solicitor harassed and abused female colleagues at a work Christmas party. On top of telling one woman that he had "roofied" their drink, Oliver Conway "repeatedly pulled [her] by the arm and put his hands around her waist and hips".
He was fined £2000 by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Unlike Oliver Conway's situation, where he was summarily dismissed from a law firm following an internal investigation, Gardner Hopkins resigned from Russell McVeagh.
During the December penalty decision the Tribunal censured Gardner-Hopkins and suspended him from practice for two years from February 7, 2022. He was also ordered to pay costs incurred by the Standards Committee, the Tribunal, and the Law Society.
It should be noted that from the period between the June 2021 decision and February 2022, Gardner-Hopkins was still eligible to practice and no costs were made to the victims.
Fast forward to last week. The Standards Committee appealed against the penalty decision, saying the former partner should have been struck off or at the least suspended for three years.
Gardner-Hopkins cross-appealed, saying the suspension should be shorter than two years. Again, it should be noted that during December's penalty hearing Gardner-Hopkins apologised to the women and told the Tribunal he wouldn't appeal against the decision. And so it was.
The High Court regarded Gardner-Hopkins' misconduct as serious, saying "it is conduct that is wholly unacceptable in the legal profession". High Court Justices' Venning, Ellis, and Hinton said the conduct was serious, exploitative, and sexual misconduct. It was not the conduct of a fit and proper person to be a lawyer, they said.
The High Court said: "Quite apart from his physical presence and the age difference between them, as a partner of the firm, Mr Gardner-Hopkins was responsible for their safety and wellbeing. It is also relevant that the young women were summer clerks.
"This was their first placement with a legal firm and they were dependent on positive reports from the partners of the firm if they intended to further their legal careers, whether with or outside the firm. This was a pivotal experience for them."
On top of this validating rhetoric, the High Court said: "We have some reservations about the Tribunal's reliance on the "laddish culture" of the team led by Mr Gardner-Hopkins to support its conclusion the conduct was not out of character.
"While we accept that some of the evidence disclosed a team culture (fostered by Mr Gardner-Hopkins) that is, quite rightly, no longer regarded as acceptable, that is a wider issue. It does not significantly inform the seriousness of the conduct giving rise to the charges."
What's more, the Tribunal erred by regarding the financial and professional consequences to Garner-Hopkins as mitigating factors, the court said. The statements of income and expenditure filed on his behalf allowed for "unavoidable" living costs of $144,000 a year after tax.
Again, to recap, during the penalty hearing Gardner-Hopkins had credit-card and an IRD debt at one stage. It was revealed he spent $12,000 a month on groceries and other living costs.
To be fair, the High Court rightly said Garnder-Hopkins "has become the public face of legal practitioners behaving inappropriately towards young employees within the profession. It is important that the sanction imposed on him reflect his behaviour, and not be elevated just to make an example of, or to scapegoat, him".
In the High Court's decision to add another year to the suspension, it said: "Had the Tribunal or this court been considering his case much closer to that time the misconduct would have justified striking off: that is what the twin protective disciplinary aims of protection of the public and of the profession's reputation would have required.
"One of the major factors discussed included Gardner-Hopkins addressing his behaviours and underlying issues that led to his misconduct."
You have to question, had the story not made the media, or that the women made complaints following, would Gardner-Hopkins have sought professional help? What's more, the length of time it took for the complaints to reach a Law Society hearing was more than six years after the original conduct. [Don't get me started on the Law Society's complaints process].
What I'm trying to say is six plus years is a hell of a long time to get your act together. But all is not lost. If a lawyer's practising certificate isn't renewed during a three-year period, they have to start the process from scratch and provide evidence that they're a fit and proper person. It's now for the profession to decide come 2025.
