Consultant hired despite allegations
A large Christchurch law firm hired senior lawyer Dean Palmer despite knowing he faced allegations he acted inappropriately towards at least one junior female staffer at his last firm.
Saunders & Co employed Palmer as a consultant based on his assurances his behaviour, which was at the time subject to an employment dispute, would be ‘‘beyond reproach’’ in his new position, it says.
Palmer, a practitioner with 41 years’ experience who had twice held senior positions at Christchurch law firms, started at Saunders & Co in July 2018. He was previously a partner at Duncan Cotterill where he worked from 1984 to 2009. He then took a position at Anderson Lloyd but left in 2015 to return to Duncan Cotterill as a consultant.
After an investigation starting in September 2018, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal this week released a decision finding Palmer’s conduct at Duncan Cotterill and Anderson Lloyd between 2015 and 2018 – which included plying two summer clerks with alcohol over lunch then taking them into a sex shop when he was 65 years old – was disgraceful, dishonourable and amounted to misconduct.
In a statement yesterday, Saunders & Co said it knew about an employment dispute between Palmer and a former employer involving complaints that ‘‘were not then established’’ when it hired him.
‘‘As part of our due diligence we sought and received assurances from Dean that his conduct would be beyond reproach if we employed him . . . We were confident that our culture, management and expectations were such that there would be no repeat of the situations which gave rise to the then allegations.’’
Palmer’s behaviour at the firm was appropriate and professional, the statement said. The firm declined to make any further comment. The employment dispute referred to in the Saunders & Co statement was over a written warning Duncan Cotterill issued Palmer in August 2017 after he sent a series of unwanted emails to a young female lawyer inviting her to dinner while he was ‘‘batching’’.
The Employment Relations Authority threw out Palmer’s personal grievance after a December 2018 hearing, noting allegations Palmer had long lunches, touched women staff and had a habit of taking typically young female staff out for coffee and lunches.
Saunders & Co senior partners acknowledged the tribunal’s findings and conveyed empathy with the complainants who came forward and the ‘‘emotional toll’’ they would have faced.
Three charges proven
The tribunal described the allegations against Palmer as ‘‘sexual harassment’’ and being ‘‘intoxicated while working as a lawyer’’. It found two of the five charges were not proved and said it had no criticism for the way Anderson Lloyd and Duncan Cotterill handled allegations against Palmer.
It found a charge relating to a summer clerks’ lunch in February 2015, while Palmer was at Anderson Lloyd, was made out. Palmer claimed it was their last week in the office, and he wished to thank them for their contribution to the firm.
He took them in his car to a BYO restaurant on the outskirts of Christchurch, taking two bottles of wine with him. Although the women were anxious to get back to work, Palmer took them to another bar where he ordered some ‘‘strong liquor’’. One of the summer clerks poured her drink into bushes.
After returning to the firm’s car park, Palmer steered them to New Regent St for another drink and took them to a sex shop, where he chatted to an assistant and gave her business cards to the clerks. After a trip to another bar, the clerks were returned to the office at 5pm, very upset at the bad impression they might have made and ‘‘a little worse for wear’’.
Anderson Lloyd investigated the lunch and suspended Palmer from the office during the investigation. Palmer left the firm under a ‘‘no fault’’ termination term in his contract over another issue. A confidential settlement was reached.
Palmer’s lack of awareness of the power imbalance and his conduct after the lunch was ‘‘disgraceful and dishonourable’’, the tribunal said. The tribunal also upheld a charge of misconduct relating to an incident in May 2017, after Palmer had returned to Duncan Cotterill as a consultant.
During a lunch hosted by him, Palmer was over-attendant to a female staffer patting her on the knee and stroking her hair and shoulder. She described Palmer as wobbly on his feet, flushed and slurring his speech. Palmer denied the charge but the tribunal preferred the woman’s evidence, describing the touching as overly familiar, not consented and unwelcome.
The other charge considered to be proved by the tribunal related to a series of emails between May and July 2017. In the emails, Palmer repeatedly asked a younger female staffer for coffee dates and then tried to persuade her to have dinner with him outside work hours.
One of the emails said: ‘‘I really would like to meet to say a few things before you go. Over dinner for preference. I promise not to bite. Well not hard.’’
After becoming aware of the email chain Duncan Cotterill gave Palmer notice of a disciplinary hearing, giving rise to a proceeding at the authority.
The tribunal said the conduct crossed the line to become disgraceful and dishonourable and found Palmer’s claim he was trying to mentor the staffer not credible.
Dismissed charges
The tribunal dismissed a charge relating to what a woman agreed might have been accidental touching when Palmer’s hand went under the slip she wore beneath her dress while dancing at a Duncan Cotterill Christmas party in 2017.
Palmer agreed he was intoxicated. During the party he tried to put his arms around a female lawyer while dancing and another partner thought he was ‘‘pestering’’ her. It dismissed a charge from an allegation Palmer was ‘‘incoherent’’ after drinking at a work lunch in February 2018.
Tribunal comment
The tribunal said the charges showed the vulnerability of junior staff ‘‘acutely aware of the need to be seen in a positive light by prospective or actual employers to enable progress within the law’’.
‘‘Almost all of the witnesses we heard expressed extreme anxiety about the potential negative effects these complaints might have on their future prospects. Despite their fears all maintained a determined effort to avoid over egging the evidence – all conceded that Mr Palmer may not have intended offence.’’
A date has yet to be set for Palmer’s penalty hearing.