The former Russell McVeagh partner facing seven charges of misconduct, or unsatisfactory conduct, engaged in a war of words today with Dale La Hood, who is representing the Law Society's national standards committee.
It is the fourth day of a disciplinary hearing before the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal, over the man’s alleged sexual misconduct.
After questions from his own lawyer, Julian Long, the man was pressed on finer details of his original statement given to Russell McVeagh versus the evidence he presented to the tribunal yesterday.
The man claimed to “clearly recall events” from the 2015 Christmas party when interviewed by Russell McVeagh.
However, when speaking to the tribunal, he referred to parts of the evening he did remember and what he didn’t remember, denying the allegations of inappropriate touching.
Four women who were summer interns at the time of the event say he sexually assaulted and harassed them that evening.
The man disputes the idea he had sexual intentions, but has said there may have been accidental touching.
He also acknowledged he was a “10 out of 10 drunk... probably 11” that evening, with his own lawyer saying his intoxication that evening “has affected the memories of the event”.
“You’ve said untruthfully that you can remember the entire evening’s events. You were fighting for your job and that’s why you lied about remembering events,” said La Hood during cross examination.
“I know how I behave when I’m drunk, and it is not in the way described [by the women]. I’ve been untruthful and unfaithful [in the past] but I am not lying to this tribunal,” the former partner responded.
“Do you accept you’re in no position to dispute what [the women] say you did to them?” La Hood asked the practitioner.
“I have totally accepted that I had no idea and no respect for people’s boundaries,” the accused replied.
When asked if he was willing to accept the women’s accounts were true, the man said he cannot as he had no intent to carry out acts of sexual misconduct.
Yesterday the man apologised “unreservedly” to the complainants.
But La Hood challenged the man's sincerity.
“You’re not saying, though, that you fully apologise to them for what they say you did to them?” questioned La Hood.
The practitioner said he fully apologised for what the women experienced “but I cannot apologise for the aspects I do not think happened”.
Earlier in the day, the man rejected claims he and his other male team members frequently made sexual remarks or sexualised women.
Two female witnesses, one on his team and one in another part of the firm, both talked about the misogynistic reputation he and the other male colleagues had.
The practitioner acknowledged there was “clique”-like behaviour and that they had their “own way of referring to people and nicknames for a lot of people”.
He also claimed the idea he had a bad attitude towards women was something that had never been raised with him.
The man left the firm in 2016 shortly after another series of events involving a different intern.
His drinking habits have routinely been brought up by both witnesses and himself.
He said he has been seeking professional help for this and also for underlying anxiety.
SHARE ME