Does your firm turn a blind eye to big billers behaving badly?

Speaking to a female lawyer a few weeks ago after a conference and the subject of ‘big billers’ cropped up.

During the conference itself, one of the speakers mentioned that firms should not tolerate harassment, bullying or discrimination from individuals just on the basis that they billed the highest amounts.

Surely, I later suggested to this lawyer, such a warning was superfluous? No firm in the modern day would turn a blind eye to such behaviour just because the perpetrators were valuable to the business?

She called her colleague across and put the same question to her. ‘Oh yes,’ came the response, as they both nodded sagely. ‘Everyone in our firm knows the guy to steer clear of, but he’s a big hitter so he gets away with it.’

Later, I asked the same question on Twitter and received a flurry of messages telling me their firms – some small, some very large indeed – were guilty of turning a blind eye to the conduct of the most valuable solicitors on their books.

One senior solicitor with a national firm told me that a male colleague was promoted to equity partner even with several grievances and complaints having been made about him for bullying and misogyny. The bigger the firm, she suggested, the worse the problem, and firms keen in public to promote collaboration and diversity quickly forgot such ideals when it came to meeting targets.

Another solicitor told me inappropriate behaviour was ‘indulged’ because the perpetrators were big billers. Anyone who raised concerns would be told this was banter or ‘just them being drunk’, and the complainant’s card would be marked. Even where the firm had female partners, this firm was still ‘run like an old boys club’.

Several women told me they specifically avoided being left alone with particular colleagues, and would arrange to look out for each other on staff nights out. HR people were understanding but ultimately toothless in the face of senior management. One junior even told me there was a phrase in their firm for the untouchable big biller: rainmaker immunity.

Obviously this attitude is morally and ethically wrong. But there may be a further problem for firms indulging this behaviour: it is turning into a regulatory issue too.

Several firms have suffered in recent years from their solicitors being hauled before the tribunal on sexual misconduct allegations. The reputational damage of appearing alongside every story must be immense.

But the SRA’s focus is likely to be towards the institution as much as the individual in future. More than a year ago the regulator said it had received complaints that some firms have an unsupportive, bullying or toxic working environment and culture.

The SRA made clear then that these issues are taken ‘seriously’ and disciplinary action would follow where the ‘work environment’ is not supportive or where there is a culture in which ‘unethical behaviour can flourish or where staff are persistently unable to raise concerns or have issues addressed’.

The fallout will be humiliating and potentially expensive. Earlier this year the SDT and SRA jointly confirmed that referrals will be made to the tribunal where there is evidence of firms creating a ‘pervasive toxic culture’.

All the indications are that the SRA is serious about these threats and will take firms to task. Many solicitors I have spoken to say their firm knows who the culprits are but chooses to prioritise financial output over workplace culture. But while these firms might turn a blind eye to the big billers allowed to get away with bad behaviour, the SRA will not.