Why the review is a cop-out

Dame Margaret Bazley’s independent review of Russell McVeagh is a cop-out. Sexual harassment and sexual assault at Russell McVeagh and other law firms are not the result of a ‘‘work hard, play hard’’ culture.

It is easy and convenient to blame alcohol, but it is not the culprit.

The root cause of this behaviour is sexism throughout the legal profession: women interns and lawyers are not valued as professionals.

We cannot fix the massive problems in our profession without properly acknowledging the power imbalance which, for hundreds of years, has seen Pa¯ keha¯ males sit at the top and filter out women and non-Pa¯ keha¯ by telling us we do not have the necessary qualifications, enough experience, or the right ‘‘chemistry’’.

The undervaluing of women occurs in every crevice of the law. Figures out this week show that male lawyers in New Zealand are paid an average of $128,500, while female lawyers are paid $66,400.

We have known for decades about the tiny number of women and non-Pa¯ keha¯ who are made partners or judges, as well as about the huge numbers of women who leave law altogether.

Sexual harassment and sexual assault in the workplace are linked to this across-the-board undervaluing of women’s contributions.

That is clearly illustrated by the completely inadequate way in which the allegations of inappropriate conduct at Russell McVeagh were dealt with.

The perpetrators were able to continue in their careers, earning extremely high incomes, and with their reputations intact.

By contrast, five female interns had the starts of their legal careers blighted by not being able to accept jobs at Russell McVeagh, while the young lawyer who supported them saw herself branded a ‘‘troublemaker’’ and her career suffered.

I utterly disagree with Dame Margaret’s statement that large-scale cultural change will require 10 years to implement.

It is actually very simple. All Russell McVeagh and other law firms have to do is offer women lawyers the same pay as they offer men when they hire them.

Appoint women and men to partnerships according to the same criteria.

And do not sexually harass female lawyers and interns.

There is nothing hard about any of this.

Describing it as a difficult process that requires a long time to implement is simply an excuse either for doing nothing, or for doing very little.

We need, today, to make all of this behaviour unacceptable. Instead of women fearing their careers will suffer if they report harassment, men should be prevented from carrying out this behaviour by the knowledge that, in future, they will be ruined if they perpetrate it.

Please: no more ‘‘solutions’’ which put the onus on the victims to be ‘‘brave’’ enough to report unacceptable behaviour.

Male lawyers need to stop standing on the sidelines and, by their silence, condoning harassment and assault.

I have never accepted Russell McVeagh’s explanation that ethics rules required it to continue working with one of the former partners. It is pleasing that Dame Margaret has reached the same conclusion.

Further, it is appalling that the firm thought the correct way to handle the issue was to bar women from working with the former partner.

However, Dame Margaret’s report leaves a number of awkward issues hanging.

My opinion is that Russell McVeagh partners were obliged by Rule 2.8 of our professional rules to report the former partner’s conduct to the Law Society.

Dame Margaret says she is aware a complaint about Russell McVeagh’s failure to report has now been made to the Law Society, and so she does not comment further on that issue.

The Law Society needs to act on it.

In addition, Dame Margaret made no factual findings about exactly what the former partner did to the interns.

That is understandable in one way, but the contrast between it and the way in which the full weight of the law would fall on one of my clients from an economically disadvantaged background speaks volumes.

It seems there really is one law for the rich and one for the poor.

The other problematic issue is the widespread use of nondisclosure agreements to hush up sexual harassment and sexual assault within the legal profession. They have been used in dozens of cases.

However, these agreements are contrary to public policy and ineffective if they seek to cover up crimes.

Those who believe that illegal behaviour has successfully been covered up by the use of non-disclosure agreements can expect to be proved wrong in the coming period.