Shearman sacks associate after student strip club complaint

This was the right decision. This is not a bad TV programme about the law. Sleazy lonely men should keep their private sexual favours away from the office, and not intimidate junior members of staff with them.

Anonymous -04 Aug 2008 | 13:29

Not all the facts are out but, reading this, I just don't see what business it is of Shearman's what a member of staff did outside the office. Going to a strip-club is not most people's thing but it's still legal. What has that got to do with his employer?

Anonymous -04 Aug 2008 | 13:42

What sort of person agrees to go to a strip club and then goes and tells the boss the next day? It's not work time and she has made it harder for other women to make genuine complaints.

Anonymous -04 Aug 2008 | 13:56

If it had been a partner who had made the alleged assault, would he have been sacked? Very unlikely.

Anonymous -04 Aug 2008 | 14:01

And if the associate had been female and the student were male, would the associate have been sacked? Again, highly unlikely.

Anonymous -04 Aug 2008 | 14:13

Shearman says 'not liable because nothing to do with us'. Then, notwithstanding that, 'you're fired'. Nice work.

Anonymous -04 Aug 2008 | 14:51

"Shearman says 'not liable because nothing to do with us'. Then, notwithstanding that, 'you're fired'. Nice work."I'm sorry, but where exactly do you see the inconsistency? Although the event had nothing to do with the firm, the behaviour and sense of judgement of this particular lawyer does not meet the standard of decorum and behavior that the firm (as well as the rules of professional conduct, while we are at it) requires of its members. Simple.

Anonymous -04 Aug 2008 | 16:02

Moral behaviour may be very important for this (and many companies), but they should be sure what all their other employees are up to on 'non work events' - 'cast not the first stone' spings to mind - was this gross misconduct or would a chat on the firm's moral code have assisted? I wonder whether there are a whole raft of undisclosed facts/agendas at work here.

Anonymous -04 Aug 2008 | 17:12

I think that the sacking was very harsh considering the girl had eyes in her head and could see before entering the premises what short of place it was. If she was that upset she could have said "thank you, but no thank you" and left.I hope wherever she goes to work they have good insurance cover.

Director -04 Aug 2008 | 17:16

Why did this person agree to go to a strip club in the first place? Presumably it was not mandatory? I think both Shearman and the trainee grossly overreacted and the trainee should grow up! No doubt he/she will have to do a lot worse in the name of 'marketing' during the course of their career. If you don't like it, don't do it, but don't get someone else fired if you can't handle something like this and are too scared to say so at the time.

Anonymous -04 Aug 2008 | 17:17

Just another example of human weaknesses and exploitation of others.

Andy Scholar, Consultant, Keoghs -04 Aug 2008 | 17:20

I really do think that this female should have realised as soon as she walked into the club what sort of club it is. She should then have said to the associate: "actually, if you will excuse me, but I wasn't planning to visit a strip club this evening. I don't have to pay for this sort of thing myself. See you tomorrow..." I agree the associate's behaviour was inappropriate and stupid but I do not think he should have been sacked for it. I think there is more to the tale than meets the eye... Women need to stand up to inappropriate behaviour themselves and take care of it themselves. We should not need the head of HR to sort out minor (assuming there was nothing more to this) instances of inappropriate behaviour for us.

Straight Talking -04 Aug 2008 | 17:20

I'd blackball the complainer. She demonstrates a serious lack of social savvy, and perhaps would be better away from any commercial or legal environment. Perhaps her vocation lies with employment in public sector.

Purbeck -04 Aug 2008 | 17:21

While I can see that the earlier part of the evening was a firm-organised event, I can't see that going on later to a club in Soho with one individual male partner was firm-organised. Did she leave as soon as she realised "what sort of club it was"? Didn't she see the signs outside or think to herself "I'm a vacation student, is this a good idea for my career, going off with one male associate late at night?" More likely she thought at the time (and after a few drinks) that it was a good idea then took umbrage when she realised she was going to be a laughing stock. The associate should have known better, but no city firm vac student is so thick or sweet and innocent that they shouldn't question going to Soho clubs late at night with older men (and yes, I'm young and female).

Anonymous -04 Aug 2008 | 17:25

Obviously all we have is the bare facts. But unless the associate did anything much worse than what we have been told, I would say this is a complete overreaction. Let's all grow up. If the student did not like the place once she realised what type of club it was, could she not simply have made her excuses and left? The associate was perhaps naive and miscalculated, but I don't think he should lose his job over it. Maybe the student was offended by the experience, but come on, get over it, you're going to need a much thicker skin than that if you're going to work as a City lawyer, and - what is much more - in life generally as there are much more important things going on in the world.

BW -04 Aug 2008 | 17:28

If every partner/associate who has been to strip clubs with colleagues was sacked, that would surely take much of the pressure off headcount in this uncertain market. A total overreaction in this case - vac students are typically 21 years old and should so take responsibility for themselves when attending social events. We are not talking about naive school pupils here.

associate, city firm -04 Aug 2008 | 17:30

If the student agreed to go, it doesn't bode well for her future adherence to confidentiality. It also seems rather strange to go and then complain afterwards - why not simply decline the invitation in the first place? There may well be that more went on, but one wonders whether she would have got her training contract if she hadn't made the allegation.

M Scammell -04 Aug 2008 | 17:36

I just don't think she's done other women any favours here. She's either stupid (for not knowing what she was getting herself into) or a troublemaker (for realising she'd been stupid and making a fuss).

NOT Cynical Feminist -04 Aug 2008 | 17:54

Ridiculous. If it was nothing to do with Shearman then they they shouldnt have fired him. They can't have their cake and eat it. If it wasn't a work event, surely he is free to do as he wishes in his own time? Total overreaction from the student as well - she sounds like great fun....

Anonymous -04 Aug 2008 | 17:54

Why didn't she simply exercise her right to walk out once she knew it was a 'strip club'? It's not as if the associate did anything illegal - simply ill-advised and misjudged!

Anonymous -04 Aug 2008 | 18:04

Not a very good decision, as I do agree what a person is doing after his office hours is his personal business and I am sure the student was not a kid either, in that she could be forced to do things that she would not otherwise do.

parvez -04 Aug 2008 | 18:08

Is anyone surprised? Law firms are rife with immoral conduct: whether it is the associate taking the student to the strip bar, the client entertainment evenings at strip bars, the married partner sleeping with his secretary, the firm retreats with all-you-can-drink booze and old partners just waiting to pounce on their drunk associates, or the random conference hook-ups ... its no wonder the associate thought it was cool - it is just part of the same pattern of behaviour that we condone any other day of the week.

Anonymous -04 Aug 2008 | 18:13

Surely if the young lady was that offended she would have made her complaint the following working day and not waited a week until her placement was over!

Anonymous -04 Aug 2008 | 22:47

This is ridiculous. I hope there are more sensible firms out there who take pity on this associate and hail and hire him just to spite the litigious and perversely PC world we are apparently now living in.

Associate (US firm) -05 Aug 2008 | 03:35

clear overreaction

Andrea -05 Aug 2008 | 03:43

Oh my crikey some of these comments are horrifying. The point is, men shouldn't be abusing social events organised by their firm to make junior employees feel as though they have to put out to get a job. This was, at the very best, appallingly badly judged. Shearman pays a lot. We're in a credit crunch. This isn't a 'job for life' industry.

associate -05 Aug 2008 | 10:39

Haven't trawled through all the comments but there seems to be general confusion as to why the associate was sacked 'just because he took her to a strip club'. Fair point, but I think the critical issue here wasn't the strip club but rather the claim of 'sexual harassment'.

Anonymous -05 Aug 2008 | 12:51

Weird. Legal Week readers back a sexist inadequate. Lawyer readers are seemingly more PC.

Mr Readership Survey -05 Aug 2008 | 14:40

As we understand it, the sanction was not made due to allegations of sexual harassment, which the firm was unable to substantiate. It was a general conduct issue.

Legal Week -05 Aug 2008 | 14:42

In that case, if it is a conduct issue, I think the firm was absolutely right to sack him. And they should have been far more willing to take some of the blame too. At the very least Shearman, and a number of firms, should have a serious look at what goes on in their 'after-work' events. It's not good enough to have some jumped-up associate hit on some bimbo student in a strip bar only for the firm to simply wash its hands of the matter because 'that's what happens in the City'.

Ex -05 Aug 2008 | 16:52

It does not say much for the firm if it can not protect staff from what is clearly a set-up. Her judgement at best seems bad and the allegation would need proof for both parts.

craig -05 Aug 2008 | 17:06

I think the firm's conduct here is justifiable, but it does call into question whether or not any other subsequent lapses of taste in entertainment would similarly be so sanctioned. My experience suggests that if a partner chooses to entertain clients - particularly from the 'red in tooth and claw' side of the City - in a strip bar, then they are rarely punished - in fact, they're thanked for what's seen as an expensable night out. There is a vogue, however for 'strip and tell' biographies (Belle du Jour, anyone?) at the moment - so this might not be the last City lawyer to appear in print....

Anonymous -05 Aug 2008 | 17:23

No Legal Week readers see through a pathetic bimbo and a pathetic firm and feel sorry for a guy who had a lack of judgement on a drunken night out, haven't we all been there before?!

city girl -05 Aug 2008 | 17:28

I look forward to hearing that Shearman has completed a thorough review of staff conduct and sacked every one who has ever been to a strip club or engaged in any other 'unacceptable' conduct.

Optimist -05 Aug 2008 | 17:32

CC never sacked that partner a few years back did they?

Anonymous -05 Aug 2008 | 18:05

It is no wonder this is tolerated in the City. A vulnerable party bravely speaks out, and is criticised by her contemporaries. Contemporaries who were not at the scene and and who are not privy to important details.How many people are reading this now who have been subject to such treatment, who have not spoken out in fear of such reception?

ABanks, student -05 Aug 2008 | 20:56

Was this girl brought up on an Amish farm or something? She knew damn well what the consequences of making such a complaint might be. I'd be interested to know whether she'd already been informed that she wouldn't be considered for a training contract. As for Shearman's HR department..! "His behaviour has nothing to do with us - but he's fired anyhow because err..his behaviour isn't not moral/inappropriate/normal?" What's their argument? As far as I understand did he molest her? No? What they did was wholly disproportionate, outside the range of reasonable responses.

Trainee City Firm -05 Aug 2008 | 21:02

We can't know all the facts. On the face of it, I don't see that going to a strip club is a sackable offence, even if you invite a vac student to join you. However, it is clearly stupid, and shows that you lack judgement and professionalism, and it would tell me that this associate shouldn't be a trainee supervisor, for instance. The appropriate punishment (if facts established)would be a disciplinary meeting and a sh*te appraisal majoring on professional conduct, responsibility, dealing with people, and making it clear that a repeat would blight his career at the firm. The allegation of other inappropriate conduct is more difficult - if some kind of sexual assault is being alleged then it should certainly be a sackable offence, but one is obliged to give the associate a fair hearing in relation to such a serious allegation.From what I have seen firms never take action on this kind of thing if it is a first offence (or indeed a second, third or fourth) but only after they have received a barrage of complaints, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if the associate had form. My firm routinely makes people who have been the subject of serial complaints of sexual harrasment up to partner. Seriously.

Anonymous -06 Aug 2008 | 09:51

The issue here is pretty clear cut from my perspective.Either the event was organised on behalf of the firm, in which case they and the senior associate are responsible for the feelings of hurt the trainee experienced, or the event was a privately organised event in which the firm had no role - in which case the matter is a private one between the trainee and the senior associate.In any event, why would any firm want to offer a training contract to someone who doesn't have the sense to refuse to go into the strip club in the first place?

Eddie Rees -06 Aug 2008 | 10:20

Not sure why it is made out to be such a big deal, but as far as I am aware the company card can be used for personal expenses as long as you pay the bill at the end and not submit the payment to the firm for reimbursement.

COMPANY CARD -06 Aug 2008 | 10:42

If Shearman had kept him on and he'd done it again, they'd have been for the high jump. Plus I heard he used his corporate card to pay for it ... that was the clincher .. As for her, I agree, why didn't she a) leave the club asap, or b) complain right away??? Sour grapes on her part if you ask me (and I work in HR ...)

Anonymous -06 Aug 2008 | 12:00

One point overlooked by many postings is that the student complained about sexual harrassment once inside, which is a complaint beyond just being upset about being taken to a strip joint. The full facts, justifying an immediate dismissal, can't just have been about a slight misjudgement by the associate or oversensitivity by the student.

Banjo -06 Aug 2008 | 13:49

The associate was not dismissed because of the sexual harassment allegation, which Shearman was unable to substantiate. It was due to the conduct in going to the club after breaking away from a work event. That is why our news article does not lead off the sexual harassment angle. That is something that other publications, following up the story, have focused on.

Legal Week -06 Aug 2008 | 14:18

We all know now what to expect inside a lapdancing bar/strip club...being dismissed for that act alone cannot in my view be right and I hope the associate takes advice/ responds with a claim to the Industrial Tribunal. Much more serious is the allegation of sexual harrassment -if unsubstantiated then i don't see how this could or should be an aggravating factor leading to a dismissal. We are not informed about the previous behaviour of the associate therefore, we cannot and should not.

Anonymous -06 Aug 2008 | 17:33

In response to those folks who think the trainee should have politely excused herself from entering the strip club once she realised where she was: it's easy to forget the insecurity of such a junior position and the subsequent pressure to please one's superiors. There is intense competition at that level, not only to produce quality work but to get along socially. Yes, she could have excused herself, but she risked her superiors thinking she was implicitly judging them. Not a great option for her. Going with the flow, especially once at the entrance of the 'bar' was probably the option most suited to avoiding a scene. And, if her sexual harassment allegation is true, it certainly doesn't follow that just because a girl agrees to enter a strip bar she thereby agrees to unwelcome advances by her superior. There is no doubt that Shearman is covering themselves by firing the associate - but I don't think focusing on whether the trainee should or should not have gone to a strip bar is really very helpful at all.

city firm -06 Aug 2008 | 18:14

Shearman needs to address the root cause here: if you make your staff work all hours and let them have no social life outside work, they start to think it's a great idea to take a girl to a strip club in a pathetic effort to pull them.

Anonymous -06 Aug 2008 | 23:47

None of us can make a judgement until we know the full facts. For example, what did the associate actually do, what had happened earlier in the evening and is she really hot?

Anonymous -07 Aug 2008 | 08:16

Has anyone focused on what this means to the dismissed associate? He won't get another job in the City with this on his CV, so the career he has been working towards for the last 10-15 years (school, university and training) is over. That seems to me a very high price to pay for what he did.

Anonymous -07 Aug 2008 | 17:40

If you look at the quotes from the student on RollOnFriday today, she comes across as a money-grabbing, manipulative.... It's women like this that make life so much more difficult for other women in the City. I have sympathy with the associate, if this was his first error of judgement, he's had to pay a high price for it.

MC Associate -08 Aug 2008 | 10:16

There's a comment made a few posts above that the student should be forgiven for entering the club due to the duress of being a junior and with someone far more senior who she presumably felt obliged to impress. Forget this line of argument. please - she and him were alone. She quite clearly could have realised earlier that she was going far beyond the call of duty in terms of impressing, just as everyone else did when they left. Strikes me she made the claim to cover her own back. It would be nigh impossible to not realise what you were entering. Who in their right mind would enter such an establishment when you've only just met a guy and you are a young woman - clearly a poor judgement call. Re the sacking - again an unjustifiable stance. Clearly it was nothing to do with the firm, if a poll were conducted, I'm sure many a respectable young professional has been in a strip joint down the Wharf or otherwise. "He who cast the first stone" should also have been circulated among the equity..........

Anonymous -08 Aug 2008 | 12:34

Very, very harsh on the associate. Not only is he hard up where the ladies are concerned, if you pardon the pun he now faces financial hardship having been, I would say, unfairly dismissed. The quotes re RollOnFriday are right, she strikes me as manipulative - wouldn't want to be a trainee competing for seats/NQ positions with someone like that!

Anonymous -08 Aug 2008 | 13:32

The comment by the poster who describes the vac student as manipulative rings true. I used to work for the London office of a national law firm. A young female NQ was known for making spurious harassment complaints at the drop of a hat - and everyone knew that. The firm eventually managed her out but only problem was that they also managed out her "victims". Trouble with complaints like that made by that NQ and the vac student in the story is that the make it more difficult for genuine complaints to be made. Sad also that the approach of firms appears to be to get rid of everyone involved.

To be Frank -10 Aug 2008 | 13:04

"...and is she really hot". I am glad I did not decide to work as a City lawyer. Why are there so many of you speculating about her character and motivation? Especially as we lack many of the facts. And, of course, why are there so many of you jumping to his defence, without knowing all the facts... I assume most of the people posting here are qualified lawyers and hence should have a balanced sense of judgement. Sexism is truly rife in the City, and it shows!

amy dane -25 Aug 2008 | 15:56

Sleazebag associate, manipulative student and a firm that wants it all ways while keeping its hands squeaky clean. Clearly the Square Mile is not full of happy bunnies.Life's Greatest Ironies Dept - the left hand column of the RollOnFriday home page is headed 'Looking for the perfect job?', followed by a list of major firms. Until just a couple of minutes ago the firm topping the list was ... yes, Shearman & Sterling. Priceless!

The Great Resolver -26 Aug 2008 | 02:24

Lets be fair - was the student blindfolded? Couldn't she have truly elected to go solo with the associate after the group social time out for some personal reasons? Could she be disappointed that the associate did not actually toe her line of thoughts and decides to affect his bright career? How old is she? Shearman has no business treating the complaint officially in the absence of a corroborative evidence sugggesting her allegation might be true. The associate has been unduly sacrificed. Sexual harrassment is a vague sin to sacrifice a brilliant lawyer for. Some firms do take this reputation stuff to a ridiculous extent. Lawyers are not missionaries and law firms are not law courts.

ROCKHAVEN SOLICITORS,NIGERIA -27 Aug 2008 | 17:59

I'm so surprised in this day and age that sexual harrassment is deemed a minor sin or that it is acceptable to label a woman who makes a complaint of sexual harrassment as a 'bimbo' or with 'no social savvy'. As others have pointed out, there are little facts known other than there was an allegation and as a result of events that night, the associate was dismissed. However, what is certain it is difficult to get training contracts, that vacation placements are often (or are perceived to be) tests of fitting in to the culture of that firm including its social culture, which is often unknown for students or new trainees. It is definitely the case that there is still occasional intimidation of potential, new and junior lawyers in law firms. If anyone has ever suffered from sexual harrassment (in work or not), they will know that deciding how to react is very difficult and that commonly victims (male and female) suffer guilt (even when such guilt is entirely misplaced). Shearman's reaction is also nothing new - the language they use is defensive in case of claims! However, that they chose to react gives me substantially more hope than the reactions of some of the commentators on this article.

Anonymous -29 Aug 2008 | 18:03

We need to get real - in the current climate, when associates are ten a penny, he fell on his sword. Whether the person complaining will last in the law remains to be seen. It is a tough business, as many associates wet behind the ears will learn.

Realist -29 Aug 2008 | 18:13