Sydney barrister gets off scot free after pushing female law clerk's head towards his groin and demanding she perform or

[Neferti]

Sydney barrister gets off scot free after pushing female law clerk's head towards his groin and demanding she perform oral sex on him

A drunken barrister who forced a female law clerk's head towards his groin while telling her to 'suck my d***' has escaped without significant punishment.

The decision of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal handed down last week described how the Sydney barrister, known as 'EFA', had touched the back of the head of the female clerk, known only as 'H', after a dinner in 2017.

He then 'moved [her head] slightly forward and down, in a direction away from EFA, whilst EFA said, once, "suck my d***"', the Tribunal found.
The incident with H immediately followed the barrister briefly simulating oral sex with another male barrister in an act the Tribunal said was a 'ritualised greeting' between them.

'H did not say that she was offended by EFA’s interaction with the other male barrister, which she witnessed,' the decision reads.

'She was, however, angered, embarrassed and humiliated by the touching of her head and the words that went with it.'

A week later, the Tribunal found, EFA wrote a letter of apology to the female clerk.

'I am sorry that you became the subject of my behaviour with my friend and given my limited recollection, I am unable to offer a further explanation,' he wrote.

'I understand that the matters to which you refer would result in embarrassment and cause you to feel uncomfortable. I apologise for that.

'I unreservedly apologise. I would like the opportunity to apologise to you in person but understand if you do not want that to occur and I respectfully acknowledge that.

The Tribunal found that the barrister's physical and mental health had suffered in the four years since the incident, that his marriage had been affected, and that he was genuinely remorseful for it occurring.

A report to the Tribunal by an independent psychiatrist said EFA was at risk of suicide if his identity were publicised in connection with the proceedings.

The barrister was reprimanded for unsatisfactory professional conduct and ordered to pay the costs of the other party but escaped a potential $25,000 maximum fine for the conduct.

He also avoided sexual harassment counselling over the incident because the Tribunal said 'we do not consider that EFA is at any risk of conducting himself in a similar way in the future'.

'We have found that EFA’s actions were a very poorly judged attempt to include H in the ritualised greeting he had engaged in with the other barrister,' the Tribunal found.

'The incident was an ill-judged attempt by EFA, late in the evening, after consuming a considerable quantity of alcohol, to include H in a jokey greeting ritual engaged in by EFA with a friend.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... groin.html

[sprintcyclist]

Should have fined him $150,000

[Neferti]

Should have fined him $150,000

They should at least name him and shame him!

[Aussie]

Should have fined him $150,000

They should at least name him and shame him!

I am reluctant to get involved in your lazy OPs where all you produce is a copy 'n paste of a media report without any personal contribution, but I can't resist this one.

He was not named probably because of all the circumstances particularly that he 'escaped without significant punishment.'

That's a problem with people like you who only have not even half the story.

[Neferti]

ALL Lawyers are potential crooks!

[Aussie]

ALL Lawyers are potential crooks!

No more than everyone is a potential crook.

[IQS.RLOW]

ALL Lawyers are potential crooks!

No more than everyone is a potential crook.

You managed to get past the "potential" part of that equation, several times.

[Bobby]

ALL Lawyers are potential crooks!

No more than everyone is a potential crook.

You managed to get past the "potential" part of that equation, several times.

Hi IQ,
we don't see very much of you here these days -
have you been busy?

[cods]

A report to the Tribunal by an independent psychiatrist said EFA was at risk of suicide if his identity were publicised in connection with the proceedings.


risk of suicide..... of course!


so its business as usual. after paying a few court costs..

[Bobby]

A report to the Tribunal by an independent psychiatrist said EFA was at risk of suicide if his identity were publicised in connection with the proceedings.
risk of suicide..... of course!
so its business as usual. after paying a few court costs..

He got off because he was drunk.
That's a good excuse.