Former Russell McVeagh partner James Gardner Hopkins, who was guilty of misconduct, has been suspended from practising law for two years. Photos / Supplied, 123rf
Former Russell McVeagh partner James Gardner Hopkins, who was guilty of misconduct, has been suspended from practising law for two years. Photos / Supplied, 123rf
A former Russell McVeagh partner guilty of misconduct has been suspended from practising law for two years by a disciplinary tribunal.
In June last year, James Gardner Hopkins was found guilty of six charges of misconduct, including for touching interns inappropriately at work functions in 2015. The case is thought of as fundamental to starting New Zealand's #MeToo movement.
His suspension will begin on February 7 this year and he has also been ordered to pay $64,630 in costs to the Lawyers Standards Committee and $43,378 to the New Zealand Law Society.
In June the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal found Gardner-Hopkins' conduct in all the charges relating to six separate incidents met the test of being regarded as "disgraceful or dishonourable".
Five of the charges related to his behaviour at the law firm's Christmas party.
"At that party, five incidents of drunken behaviour occurred with junior staff members involving tactile dancing and other physical contact."
The sixth charge related to his behaviour at another firm function held at his home.
During that hearing, multiple former summer clerks testified that Gardner-Hopkins had touched them inappropriately, with one woman describing that she felt like a "piece of meat".
Another woman said she felt "extremely" distressed and "cried all weekend" after he had touched her without consent and allegedly touched her friend's breast in front of her.
When she discovered other women claimed they too had experienced misconduct she said it was "terrifying" because it made it feel like "it's inescapable".
The Tribunal, Chaired by Judge Dale Clarkson, wrote in the penalty ruling that the starting point for his offending must be a strike-off, but there were other principles weighed against that.
"Although Mr Long [Gardner-Hopkins lawyer] urged us to impose a penalty short of suspension, noting that a censure remains on the practitioner's record and is taken as a serious matter, we consider that nothing short of a significant period of suspension will suffice to mark the seriousness of the misconduct, the harm to victims in this matter and the considerable work still required in therapy."
The Tribunal wrote that the practitioner himself acknowledged at the penalty hearing, that he now accepted the laddish culture and inappropriate comments, that he "led and fostered was inappropriate".
"While we will take account of that level of insight and modified behaviour under the heading of mitigation, we do have to accept that, at the time of the offending, this conduct could not be considered entirely out of character."
The ruling referenced the "very significant consequences" that arose as a consequence of his conduct, including a "significant drop in income" and a "significant reputational and emotional".
"The enormous public interest and publicity surrounding this case, for over three years, has meant that, despite suppression orders, Mr Gardner-Hopkins has had the ignominy of being the "face of" sexual harassment in the legal profession.
"He acknowledges that he only has himself to blame for that, but has lost many professional associations, clients and been "uninvited" from professional events."
However, they also said the effect on the victims was "far reaching" and that some had left the profession altogether as a result, whilst others changed to different areas of the law.
"As one of them explained during the liability hearing, the fact that they were not safe from a partner, led to a feeling that they could not be safe anywhere in the workplace."
The Tribunal accepted his counsel's submission that Gardner-Hopkins had since implemented strategies to ensure he does not put himself into situations where his behaviour may depart from the standards he expects from himself.
"We consider that Mr Gardner-Hopkins has, albeit belatedly, and with a little less enthusiasm than we might have wanted to see, taken positive steps to reflect, face up to and deal with the factors which led him to this point."
Despite Long arguing his client's inability to practise law would lead to his "financial ruin", the Tribunal resisted and pointed to the "relatively high living expenses" claimed by the lawyer and his family.
This was at the time estimated at $12,000 per month.
Also during the penalty hearing Gardner-Hopkins had confirmed that there were professional roles within the Resource Management area which he could undertake without the need for a practising certificate.
And the Tribunal wrote that it would be "surprising if a man of his talents could not obtain gainful employment if he were prohibited from practising law".
One former worker told the Tribunal last year that supporting the interns who accused him of sexual misconduct felt like a "full-time job".
She said even after complaints had been escalated he remained working and the women were "petrified" of running into him and were "traumatised".
The woman said she was told by various people in the firm that she was a "troublemaker" and that she was making a "mountain out of a molehill".
"Gaslighting is probably the best way to describe it."
The incident where the practitioner touched an intern's breast in front of others led to charge five, and was "arguably the most serious" according to the ruling.
"The fact that the practitioner was so disinhibited that he touched Ms B intimately in front of other people may speak to his level of intoxication.
"The accounts of the witnesses also agree that the practitioner suggested going home with Ms B at least twice, separately from his suggestion that they go to town together."
It also referred to the firm's culture of "work hard play hard", and in particular about the culture of the EPNR team led by Gardner-Hopkins.
One young lawyer who worked in his team said her perception was that there was a misogynistic culture in that team and certainly female employees did not last long.
In a response to the ruling being handed down, New Zealand Law Society president Tiana Epati said while a sterner penalty was sought by the Standards Committee, it was a significant term of suspension.
"The penalty imposed does not mean Mr Gardner-Hopkins will automatically be able to work as a lawyer after two years. Following suspension, he will need to apply to a Law Society practice approval committee for a new practising certificate."
The Tribunal wrote that at the end of his suspension Gardner-Hopkins needs to satisfy the Practice Approval Committee (PAC) that he has undertaken appropriate treatment/therapeutic interventions to mitigate any risks that might remain.
They outlined four areas of risk that had been identified in relation to his conduct. These included problematic alcohol consumption, poor understanding of professional practices, loss of mentorship and a failure to prioritise therapeutic needs and personal support.
"The onus is squarely on him to prove he is fit and proper to be a lawyer again."
