'Demonstrable misogyny' required strike-off, tribunal reveals

A former director of an international firm found to have committed 70 acts of sexual misconduct had to be struck off to reflect the gravity of his misconduct, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has said in its written judgment. 

Oliver Bretherton, who worked for Gowling WLG at the time, had been ‘sexually motivated, controlling and unreasonable’ in his behaviour towards an 18-year-old female colleague referred to as Person A.

The tribunal ruled in June that Bretherton should be struck off in what was believed to be the first such punishment for non-criminal sexual misconduct in the workplace.

The written judgment, which runs to 82 pages, was published on Friday and outlines how Bretherton was in a position of authority and showed a ‘demonstrable theme of misogyny directed at young women’.

The tribunal said Bretherton’s involvement on the firm’s gender inequality committee and his flexible approach to working given his parental responsibility had been ‘advanced in an attempt to camouflage and detract from his nefarious conduct’.

The ruling added: ‘Mr Bretherton’s misconduct was intrusive, indecent and took place both at work and outside of work. Whilst the tribunal accepted that Person A wanted to be noticed within the firm, Mr Bretherton took advantage of her age, naivete and the fact that it was her first job after leaving school.

‘The tribunal accepted that the investigation and proceedings would undoubtedly have caused stress and anxiety to Mr Bretherton and his family. However, those adverse consequences were predicated entirely on his own behaviour and the choices he made at all material times to behave in the manner that he did.’

Bretherton, who was in his mid-30s at the time, had first met Person A when he interviewed her for a role. She was studying for her A-levels at the time. Messaging between them began over WhatsApp a month after she started work at Gowling, with Bretherton, who is married, describing this as a ‘consensual sexual fantasy’ apart from one occasion when they kissed.

The messaging stopped after a year and she complained to the firm 11 months later.

The tribunal considered each of the 77 allegations against Bretherton in turn, including some relating to two other women in their early 20s.

It was found proved that Bretherton went through colleagues’ names with Person A and ranked them for who would be the best in bed. He asked Person A about the sex lives of her friends and told her he masturbated over a picture she sent him. He told her to wear skirts and dresses to work and on a works drinks night said he wanted to have sex with her over the pool table. The tribunal also found it proved that Bretherton made Person A wear a sex toy in the office.

On most of the particular allegations, there was a dispute between Person A and Bretherton about what had happened, but in the majority of those cases the tribunal preferred her evidence.

Bretherton’s representative had asked the tribunal to impose either a high financial penalty or short period of suspension. It was submitted he had ‘no idea at the time’ of causing any harm, and he had never intentionally or recklessly abused his position of power.

However the tribunal found that Bretherton caused ‘significant and profound harm’ to Person A, who said in her evidence she had thought this was how women were treated in the profession.

Bretherton has 21 days from the publication of the judgment to appeal.