By Gabriel Princewill-
An experienced male solicitor who repeatedly touched a female co-worker inappropriately and told racist jokes was allowed to keep his job by the Solicitor’s Disciplinary Tribunal, after the tribunal stated that he breached accepted codes of conduct, behaved inappropriately, and The SDT also stated that the “joke” told by the Respondent was” wholly reprehensible’, and that the joke was told in a restaurant where members of the public were dining as well as staff from the Firm.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal this week published its reasons for the decision to fine Samuel Maurice Charkham £30,000 following a hearing in October.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
The allegation was that around December 2016, at a social event organised by the Firm and attended by
employees of the Firm, the defendant told a joke containing a racially abusive term in circumstances
in which such conduct amounted to a breach of one or more of Principle 2, Principle 6
and Principle 9 of the SRA Principles 2011.
Charkham, a solicitor since 1977, and a partner at London firm Simkins, was found to have inappropriately touched a secretary who worked at the firm and also to have told a racist joke at a staff Christmas lunch, before later walking towards the same secretary, who is black, wearing a hat and pretending to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
The complainant stated that whilst at the table during the social event in question, she was aware that the Respondent had made a “joke” of which she caught the odd word. One word that she did overhear
was “coon” at which point everyone at the table gasped and stared at her. She “wanted
the ground to open up” and thought “here I am again, I would rather be at home.” the words “black man” and “coon” and that others .told her the full extent of the “joke”.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
Admission Of Guilt
Mr Clakham accepted he was ”undoubtedly guilty, only, of telling 2 jokes in bad taste. In the case ofthe first joke, [Person A] was not in the room or within earshot. In the case of the second, I offered my sincere apologies as soon as I realised my mistake. If the SRA chooses to punish me for these “crimes” then so be it…” His comments were in addition to an admission that he had in the past cracked anti-semetic jokes.
Risk
The tribunal opted not to suspend or strike off Charkham as it ‘did not consider that [he] posed a risk to the public, nor that there was significant risk to colleagues and others of any repeat of the behaviour similar to that in 2014 – 2017’.
The judgment added: ‘The tribunal was satisfied that these proceedings and findings were such that [Charkham] was unlikely to behave in the same manner moving forwards.’ It went on to say the misconduct was considered ‘very serious’, and as such a £30,000 fine was appropriate. The implication of the judgement was that it was also appropriate for him to keep his job. The judgement that there was no significant risk to other colleagues can also reasonably be construed to be because other colleagues do not belong to a minority group. No indication was given of the ratio of colleagues belonging to a minority group to those not belonging to a minority group at the firm.
Mr Clarkham admitted that contact had been made with the woman, but maintained that it was with his foot as opposed to his hand. He reminded the Tribunal that the woman did not and could not have seen which part of the Respondent’s anatomy had made contact as she was faced away from him at the material time.
Culpability
The Tribunal carefully considered the Respondent’s culpability for his actions. When considering the motivation element, the Tribunal took careful account of the fact that the particular details of the allegations and the Respondent’s conduct meant that they had already found racial motivation for some allegations 1.1 and 1.2 proved, and sexual motivation for allegation 1.3 proved.
On the whole, the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent’s behaviour had been thoughtless and resulted from an inability to appreciate the inappropriateness of his actions and that he had no regard for the effects of his actions on others.
The Tribunal did not consider that to vitiate, mitigate, or excuse the behaviour. On the contrary, the Tribunal concluded ”it demonstrably showed the Respondent’s lack of respect, inability to conform to acceptable standards of behaviour and belief that he could conduct himself in any manner that he deemed fit”.
‘The Respondent was in a position of significant seniority and responsibility and the tribunal accepted that the reputation of the profession was inevitably and severely damaged by this misconduct by a solicitor in such a role.
The tribunal said it considered mitigating factors, thereby taking into account that these were the first allegations of misconduct made against the defendant in a 43 years of an unblemished and successful career.
What the tribunal didn’t say, but from which logical deductions can be made from their ruling, was whether a racist joke which was offensive warranted a suspension or a striking off. The extrapolation from their judgement is that it does not warrant a suspension at all, and the fine of £30,000 suffices. Observers who followed the case via zoom were split about their views on the outcome, some concluding the punishment is sufficient, and others that it is not.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal was contacted for comment, and said it would do so in due course.
A spokesperson for The Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA)told The Eye Of Media.Com: ” we will look at the judgement and consider our next step”. The SRA has 21 days to appeal the judgement, and would only appeal where the SDT has erred in law or failed to follow its own procedures.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar