Creepy Uncle
The British Columbia Law Society Hearing Panel imposed a sanction for an attorney’s sexual harassment of two employees.
The venue
On June 20, 2020, CBM [Lawyers LLP] hosted a firm summer event at a restaurant in Vancouver (the “Event”). In June 2020, approximately 50 staff and lawyers worked at CBM and approximately 40 of them attended the Event.
(a) During the bus ride to the Event, the Respondent complimented A on her sunglasses and the colour of her lipstick.
(b) During the Event, the Respondent performed what he called a “creepy uncle” routine, which involved him peering from around a corner, staring with a “creepy” expression on his face. The Respondent had done the “creepy uncle” routine before. It was a “thing he does.”
(c) The Respondent performed the “creepy uncle” routine both inside and outside the restaurant while photos were being taken.
(d) During dinner, the Respondent appeared approximately four times at A’s table as a “creepy uncle.”
(e) The Respondent felt that the “creepy uncle” routine was a joke and that it was humorous. He felt it was a routine intended to be a parody of an uncle who behaved strangely, but not in a sexually suggestive manner.
(f) Several times during the Event, while at the restaurant, the Respondent stood close to A and put his hands on the back of her chair.
(g) After eating dinner, A stated that she had become bloated from dietary issues. The Respondent heard A say that she was pregnant with a “food baby” and responded “Oh, don’t you do this to me.”
(h) A began visiting tables of her colleagues and making jokes about the “food baby.” After she visited several tables, the Respondent joined in and joked that the “baby” was his baby.
(i) The Respondent does not dispute or deny that at one point during the Event, he held A close, by the arm, and touched her stomach with his other hand as part of the joke about the “food baby.”
(j) The Respondent does not dispute or deny that he pulled A aside and told her that all jokes aside, he thought they would make a really good baby together, that he would take care of A and that she would not have to worry about anything. The Respondent told A he thought that with her eyes they would make a really good baby together.
(k) On the return bus trip to Langley, the Respondent had a container of alcohol in his jacket pocket. He consumed more alcohol.
(l) For part of the return bus trip, the Respondent sat next to A. The Respondent told A that she had been “ballsy” to ask for a raise and that his law partner had been mad at her for doing so. The Respondent talked to A about the stress of being a partner and how the firm was not making money during the pandemic. The Respondent talked to A about another lawyer’s billable hours and how that lawyer had not been pulling their weight. The Respondent also talked about how someone had asked for a raise when they did not deserve one. During this conversation, the Respondent also told A that she had a bright future at the firm.
a) During the “creepy uncle” routine at the Event, the Respondent stood behind B while she was seated at a table, leaned over the back of her chair and in doing so, brought his head and upper body quite close to her so that they almost touched and in doing so, made B feel uncomfortable. A photograph of that moment was attached to the ASF.
(b) During the return bus trip, the Respondent was near the back of the bus dancing in the aisle. While standing behind B, the Respondent moved his hand toward her head. B pushed his hand away and told him not to touch her head. The Respondent responded by saying words to the effect of “It’s not like I made this motion.” while making a downward gesture with his hand, miming a sexually suggestive act involving a head moving towards the Respondent’s crotch. He did not touch B’s head when he made the comment and gesture. The Respondent walked away after B told him to “buzz off.
The panel analyzed the elements of workplace sexual harassment at some length.
Sanction
In light of the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the misconduct, the Respondent’s alcohol dependency and the remedial steps taken, we accept the proposed joint submission for a six-week suspension. We find that the proposed disciplinary action is not contrary to the public interest in the administration of justice. In our view, the proposed disciplinary action will protect the public interest and maintain public confidence in the integrity of the profession.