Bend over barrister ‘gets off too lightly’

Auckland barrister John Eichelbaum was fined and censured earlier this month by the Lawyers Standards Committee. The woman behind the complaint tells Cecile Meier the committee’s published decision contains a watered down version of what happened.

Jane* knew something was off when she saw the pair of ‘‘skimpy red lacy panties’’ on John Eichelbaum’s hedge.

The young lawyer was visiting the senior barrister’s property with an expert to examine evidence for her real estate client’s case.

Eichelbaum was representing himself in a lawsuit against Jane’s client, who had sold him her own Parnell home in a private sale.

When Jane and her expert saw the underpants, they were embarrassed and intimidated.

Eichelbaum ‘‘giggled and said something about them being tied to his car aerial over the weekend,’’ Jane says.

He then refused to allow her expert to come with her.

A couple of days later, Eichelbaum changed his mind and allowed both Jane and her expert back on site. But this time, he only allowed them to carry out the inspection if Jane bent over in front of him through a window to sign a piece of wood.

Jane, who was was wearing a fitted skirt and high heels, and her expert protested but Eichelbaum ‘‘wouldn’t back down’’.

‘‘As I was worried about wasting my client’s money, I agreed to perform the manoeuvre which was embarrassing and he thought it was hilarious.’’

After the two ‘‘degrading’’ encounters, Jane says more harassment, including threats and inappropriate language followed over about 18 months.

She made a complaint to the Law Society about Eichelbaum’s behaviour in May 2014, which resulted earlier this month in censure and a $10,000 fine.

Eichelbaum was also censured and fined $10,000 in relation to a complaint laid by Jane’s client.

In this separate case, the committee found Eichelbaum displayed ‘‘threatening, bullying, insulting behaviour’’ towards the client over a five-year period.

Jane believes she is not the only one Eichelbaum has harassed and bullied and won’t be the last. In

2015, he was censured by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal after it found him guilty of two charges of misconduct and one charge of unsatisfactory conduct.

The tribunal found he had sent his client a threatening draft affidavit containing ‘‘offensive and scurrilous remarks against the client’’ and six emails or letters he sent to other lawyers which were ‘‘discourteous’’, some of them containing threats.

Jane says it took her a lot of courage to bring the complaint against a senior lawyer, the son of the former chief justice Sir Thomas Eichelbaum. ‘‘I can’t help but wonder whether he received a light penalty because of his good family name,’’ she says.

She says part of her complaint, which The Press has seen, included his threat to sue her as a defendant in a conspiracy proceeding if she didn’t get her client to pay him

$50,000. She said it felt like blackmail.

‘‘This threat alone, in the absence of other complaints should have resulted in a much tougher penalty.’’

Former lawyer Olivia Wensley, who has been vocal about sexual harassment in the law industry, says the case makes her angry.

‘‘This is a second finding against this man. He got a light slap on the wrist for sexual harassment and other obnoxious behaviour over a long period of time. The $10,000 ‘fine’ is what many barristers charge for just 10 hour’s work.

‘‘And so it continues, powerful men are protected and face little consequences when women are brave and make a complaint. Nothing will change, until these perpetrators face real, hard, consequences.’’

She was disappointed the decision – ‘‘an extremely sanitised account of the original complaint’’ – did not call the behaviour sexual harassment. ‘‘Let’s call a spade a spade, it is sexual harassment.’’

Law Society executive director Mary Ollivier said the rules governing lawyers’ conduct included ‘‘the obligation to treat all lawyers with respect and courtesy’’, which included sexual harassment and other unacceptable conduct.

Lawyers could face two levels of disciplinary finding: unsatisfactory conduct , which included unbecoming or unprofessional conduct or misconduct, which included conduct regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable.

Eichelbaum declined to comment.