A former Russell McVeagh partner whose misconduct kick-started a #MeToo movement in New Zealand is seeking a new practising certificate after a three-year suspension.
James Gardner-Hopkins was found guilty of six misconduct charges by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal.
There is no redemption for James, there is an unforgivingness in being brown. He was the first great target of MeToo in NZ and he must forever be hung endlessly by the woke for all he represents.
Damien Grant explored this case in 2022 with far less malice…
From the published legal judgements, Gardner-Hopkins had a challenging path to adulthood.
He was a man of talent and flaws in equal measure. He was, as we all are, a creature of his nature and his nurture. Placed into the fulcrum of a high-pressure legal career, he fell in love with booze and, possibly, in love with himself.
I have met a number of men like Gardner-Hopkins. Successful. Confident. Arrogant. Prone to recklessness. In the case of this particular lawyer, the accepted social boundaries that define modern manners when it comes to navigating interactions between the sexes were violated.
On two catastrophic nights, he got drunk and acted disgracefully. The details matter. On the first night, at a work function, he groped four young women and attempted to kiss one of them. These advances were uninvited and unwanted.
On a second, he had a consensual sexual encounter with another women.
Summer Interns
Context, as well as details, matter. The young women were summer interns at the law firm where Gardner-Hopkins was a senior partner. He had power. They did not. The tribunal considering the matter heard that his victims had been seriously affected by his behaviour, even to the extent of abandoning a career in law.
He was asked to resign from the partnership. He became the focus of media attention.
The Law Society suspended him for two years, which was increased by the High Court to three.
He will need to convince the Law Society that he is a fit and proper person at the end of this suspension before being re-admitted.
There have been those who believe the sanction is insufficient. That his legal career must end. Those inclined to have sympathy for the beleaguered, disgraced lawyer have more wisdom than me and are wisely keeping their own counsel.
Now, the Law Society isn’t a private organisation. It is a body created by statute. It has regulatory powers and has a central role in the maintenance of the justice system and the confidence that the public has in the functioning of our legal system.
To this end, members of the public can, and should, express their views on how it upholds standards amongst its membership.
The problem that this particular lawyer faces isn’t merely his actions.
The question that the Law Society must consider is whether these actions demonstrate that the individual is a fit and proper person to be a lawyer.
Punishment is not the point. It is the nature of the individual’s character rather than the details or seriousness of their offending that is at issue.
By acting in the way that he did, Gardner-Hopkins revealed an aspect of his character that invited the Law Society to consider his fitness to retain his practising certificate.
Reading the judgments, Gardner-Hopkins made things more difficult for himself by his deflection and obfuscation as the matter was being investigated. Ultimately, however, he did what was required, got treatment, and issued the requisite mea-culpas.
This case troubles me. It is relevant that it is being heard in the shadow of the #MeToo movement and has garnered significant media attention.
It is fair to ask, did this play a role in how this matter was determined?
The maintenance of public confidence in the justice system requires more than holding to account those who fall short of its standards.
We rely on the legal system to act as a shield between an unpopular individual and the mob. The greatest act of a judge is to refuse to wash their hands of a difficult case.
To rule objectively and deaf to the chants for spectacle from the crowd is the greatest test of any judicial system.
The fate of James Gardner-Hopkins has yet to be ultimately determined. His redemption will require the indulgence and forgiveness of his clients and peers.
And it will require the Law Society to consider not only the integrity of the profession but the equally critical function of making an objective decision that serves the interests of justice and without mind to the fickle winds of popular sentiment.
…woke cancel culture Lynch mobs on social media didn’t help the Left, it made us look like pious executioners more interested in symbolic displays of destroying the patriarchy and heteronormative white cis male privilege than you know, justice and mercy.
This article was first published on the Daily Blog.
Hey, reading this, couldn’t help but wonder, what kind of support system do these firms have for interns facing such issues? Or is it all just corporate talk with no real action? Seems like a serious problem if it’s pushing people away from their careers.
That’s a good point. Many companies claim to have policies in place but often fail to implement them effectively. It’s a gap that needs addressing urgently.
It’s quite disheartening to hear stories like this. Makes one think twice about the environments we’re entering into. Solid reporting on this, LawFuel Editors.
Yet another tale of power misuse, huh? What’s new. Bet nothing’s gonna change, just a few PR stunts and back to business.
While the article raises important points, one has to ponder the broader systemic issues that allow such behaviors to perpetuate within corporate structures. Is it enough to single out individuals, or should there be a deeper interrogation of the power dynamics at play? Moreover, considering the impact on the victims’ careers, examining the pathways for rectification and support is crucial.