A male solicitor formerly with international firm Taylor Wessing LLP behaved in a ‘sexually motivated’ way when he touched a woman at an event, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has found. 

Daniel Paul Hugh Hutchings, admitted in September 2010, attended a lunch hosted by the Society of Construction Lawyers before heading to another event organised by a construction chambers at a club in London's Mayfair. The tribunal heard Hutchings ‘from his own admission’ approached 'person A' while at the club. She was previously unknown to him and on two separate occasions he made comments about her appearance.

The court was told Hutchings said words to the effect of ‘you’re really fit’ and/or ‘you’ve got a great bum’. Hutchings also touched person A including placing one or more of his hands on her waist on one or more occasions. He ignored person A’s attempts, by words and contact, to make clear that his contact was unwanted.

The tribunal heard that Hutchings ‘appeared to be drunk and unsteady on his feet’ according to person A. He ‘kept putting his hands on her arm and shoulder to steady himself’ and was described as ‘handsy’ by witness B.

Hutchings was described as ‘seeming to fixate on [person A]’ and ‘while making the comments [he was] staring at her breasts and bottom.’

On the first day of a scheduled three-day hearing, the tribunal accepted in its entirety written evidence from person A and witness B, neither of who can be named. Hutchings also chose not to give evidence because, the tribunal was told, ‘he [had] an imperfect recollection of the events.’

Greg Treverton-Jones, for Hutchings, said: ‘There is no formal challenge [to the evidence] as [we] are anxious that neither person A or witness B should give evidence, that is an ordeal we have been keen to spare.’ He added that it ‘came as a surprise that the SRA has made them available.’

Nimi Bruce, for the SRA, said: ‘We were told last week witnesses were to be released. Had there been a desire to spare witness anxiety that was very late.’ 

The tribunal instructed that the witnesses could be released.

Treverton-Jones said: ‘One issue, the one factual issue in dispute is the question of sexual motivation and you will know from what you have read that my client cannot remember the events with any clarity at all and in those circumstances, as a result of advice he has had from his legal team, we would not propose to give oral evidence. Not because he is running away from giving oral evidence but because he does not think he can give help to the tribunal due to his state of recollection.’

He added: ‘He does not think his recollection of events would be good enough to assist you. If the tribunal were to draw adverse inference from that…he would want to reconsider his stance.’

Responding to Treverton-Jones' assertion that Hutchings touched person A 'to steady himself', Bruce said: ‘Despite her repeated attempts to get him to stop, it can only lead that his behaviour was for sexual gratification or in pursuit of a sexual relationship or both. What else could it have been apart from sexually motivated behaviour?’

Treverton-Jones said: ‘He does not have a proper memory of what happened and in those circumstances it would not be right to draw an adverse inference from him.’

While he accepted witness B's description of Hutchings as 'handsy', 'There is no assertion in that paragraph or anywhere else that he has used his hands in a sexually motivated manner,' Treverton-Jones said. ‘The SRA tends to charge allegations of lack of integrity in every case nowadays but it does not fit properly in this case.’

The tribunal found Hutchings' actions were sexually motivated and amounted to a breach of principle 2 and principle 5 of the code of conduct. The tribunal continues to hear submissions on sanction.