Senior Christchurch lawyer plied junior clerks with liquor then took them to sex shop

Wednesday, 16 November 2022

A senior Christchurch lawyer took two junior summer clerks to a boozy lunch, detouring into a sex shop on the way back, a lawyers’ disciplinary panel has been told.

The two young women arrived back with Richard Dean Palmer – known as Dean – to the office of Anderson Lloyd, about 5pm “a little the worse for wear”, according to a decision of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal.

The women were law students, with summer jobs as clerks, and Palmer was a senior consultant.

As well as the clerks’ lunch in February 2015, three female lawyers also complained about him. The tribunal described the allegations against him as “sexual harassment” and being “intoxicated while working as a lawyer”, but two of the five charges were not proved.

**READ MORE:

* Former Russell McVeagh partner admits sexually inappropriate behaviour

* Frustration after #Metoo lawyer suspended, not struck off

* Former Russell McVeagh lawyer at centre of #MeToo controversy gets another year's suspension

**

A date has yet to be set for Palmer’s penalty hearing. The tribunal’s decision said there had been no further concerns since he began as a consultant for another firm in July 2018.

The tribunal noted “contextual similarities” with allegations against James Gardner-Hopkins, a senior lawyer accused of drunken and inappropriate behaviour with young women. His alleged conduct became a focus of the #Metoo movement in New Zealand, sparking public protests.

Dean Palmer left Anderson Lloyd in February 2015 - the same month as the clerks’ lunch - and went to the firm of Duncan Cotterill in March 2015 where he struck employment problems before leaving in 2018. He currently works for Christchurch firm Saunders and Co.

Duncan Cotterill expressed concerns to a lawyers’ standards committee, which led to an investigation that uncovered the earlier clerks’ lunch.

Palmer said he took the two summer clerks to lunch at a restaurant or cafe on the outskirts of Christchurch in their final week to thank them.

He took two bottles of wine.

The clerks became anxious about getting back to the office and started receiving messages asking where they were, but Palmer took them to another bar and cafe where he bought them “strong liquor”. One, at least, of the clerks poured her drink into some bushes.

Instead of going into the office he steered them along New Regent St to have another drink.

They passed an adult sex shop that had been controversial with local businesses when it opened.

“Mr Palmer said that he was simply curious about how they were doing in the light of that publicity, so headed into the shop (with the summer clerks in tow), where he began a conversation with the shop assistant,” the tribunal said.

The young women recounted feeling uncomfortable and “weird” about having been brought into the shop. Before leaving Palmer obtained business cards that he handed to each of the young women.

The witnesses well remembered their discomfort at feeling obliged to go along with whatever he suggested, because of the power imbalance between them.

“We regard Mr Palmer’s apparent lack of awareness of this dynamic as reprehensible,” the tribunal said.

Palmer said the sex shop visit was “unwise” but the tribunal said that, added to having plied them with liquor and taking them to a venue from which it was difficult to “escape”, the highly inappropriate visit to the sex shop would make right-thinking members of the profession think his behaviour disgraceful and dishonourable.

Palmer was banned from the office while the lunch was investigated.

Just over two years later, at a lunch he hosted while at Duncan Cotterill, he had patted the knee, stroked the hair and shoulder of an intermediate level lawyer, it was alleged. She said he was slightly wobbly on his feet, flushed and slurring.

“She was fair in her description of the touching, likening it to something that a father might do, but not appropriate as between a senior colleague and employee,” the tribunal said.

It was “overly familiar, unconsented and unwelcome”, it said.

Palmer denied the touching, but the tribunal said it preferred the evidence of the woman, and said misconduct was proved for that incident as well.

Later on the day of the lunch Palmer continued a series of emails to a first-year solicitor asking her to have coffee with him, or dinner because he was “batching”.

He said he was trying to support and mentor a young lawyer. The tribunal said the justification became “thin to the point of non-existent” when he persisted even after finding out she was leaving the profession. She provided the email chain to the firm’s human resources officer at her exit interview.

He had been warned about his conduct with young women. His behaviour crossed the line to become disgraceful and dishonourable, the tribunal said.

The tribunal dismissed a charge relating to what a woman agreed might have been an accidental touching while dancing at the Duncan Cotterill Christmas party in 2017 when Palmer’s hand went under the slip she wore beneath her dress.

It also dismissed the charge from an allegation Palmer was “incoherent” and unable to sensibly discuss work after drinking at a work lunch in February 2018. It said there was no indication of harm to clients or other evidence of impaired performance. Palmer’s timesheet showed he did no substantial legal work that afternoon.

The tribunal commended the evidence of the complainants who it said conceded Palmer may not have intended offence. They made a determined effort to avoid over-egging their evidence, it said. Almost all had been extremely anxious about the potential negative effects on their future prospects of having been complainants.

This article was amended at 11:43pm on November 16 to clarify that only the clerks’ lunch occurred while Palmer worked at Anderson Lloyd.