Woman speaks out about lewd lawyer’s ‘bawdy’ behaviour at Christmas parties

Sunday, 3 August 2025

A lawyer who was censured for making lewd comments and poking his colleagues in the bottom with a shepherd’s staff has been revealed to be partner at top tier firm Buddle Findlay Patrick Mulligan. A former colleague questions why it took so long for his behaviour to be called out, reports Jonathan Killick. A warning, this story contains strong language.

In his defence, environmental lawyer Patrick Mulligan told a disciplinary tribunal that he knew his sense of humour could be “bawdy”, but said his jokes were meant to put his colleagues “at ease”.

It had the opposite effect, with a young lawyer telling the Sunday Star-Times she believed her colleagues felt “distressed” at having to come to the office after Mulligan’s behaviour at multiple Christmas parties in 2020 went “too far”.

Among other acts, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal heard that when summer clerks - student interns - were being thanked for their efforts in organising one of the parties, Mulligan made a “phallic gesture” at them.

He then shouted that “summer clerks love the taste of cum in their mouths,” it says in a ruling document, with the tribunal noting that “to fairly represent the level of inappropriateness of these comments, it was necessary to record them, notwithstanding how unpleasant they are”.

According to the tribunal, it was told by one lawyer they had a 'prevalent feeling of dread' about going to work.

One young lawyer, who worked at the firm with Mulligan, tells the Star-Times his behaviour throws into question the profession’s standards requiring those admitted to the legal bar to be a “fit and proper person”.

In the four years since the incidents, Mulligan has been able to continue to practise having left from Buddle Findlay following complaints made by junior staff, only last month being given a 15-month suspension by the tribunal after a lengthy investigation and hearing process.

The young lawyer says it shows the legal industry has a long way to go despite changes implemented in the wake of ex-Russell McVeagh’s James Gardner-Hopkins being found to have sexually assaulted co-workers, spurring New Zealand’s ‘Me Too’ movement.

The NZ Law Society says yet another case is “disappointing for the profession” while the Auckland Women Lawyers Association says it’s a cautionary tale for larger firms with ingrained hierarchical structures where change may be slow to take root.

In a statement released in tandem with the lapse of an order suppressing identifying details, Buddle Findlay chief executive Philip Maitland emphasised that the firm “does not condone unacceptable behaviour”.

“We remain committed to upholding the highest standards of professional integrity and conduct,” he said.

In the tribunal, Mulligan submitted that he knew he handled alcohol “poorly”, but his drinking stemmed from “social anxiety” and he had used humour in an attempt to “fit in” at events held by the firm.

One example of his “jokey”, “gregarious” nature, the tribunal heard, was when the senior partner joined in a “dance circle” and grabbed the penis of a junior solicitor and mimicked oral sex in full view of the room.

“The touching was uninvited, and [Mulligan] cannot have believed it was wanted,” tribunal members wrote.

It was alleged that Mulligan then remarked that another employee was “definitely gay”, saying “his wife probably gets nothing from him [and] she’ll be sourcing it elsewhere”.

And, the “jokes” continued when Mulligan asked a group of female colleagues how much they weighed, with a young staffer confiding that it wasn’t as much as she used to.

“Well, you must have been a fat bitch,” responded Mulligan.

The tribunal heard the staffer was “taken aback” by the comment, but awkwardly laughed because she didn’t want to get into “trouble or jeopardise chances of receiving a graduate role”.

The young lawyer who worked at Buddle Findlay and attended the parties tells the Star-Times that these kinds of comments were not unusual at the firm.

“It was an old boys club attitude where we were just expected to put up with [sexist comments] and it’s not good enough,” she says, speaking anonymously in hope of encouraging genuine change.

The woman says the firm had taken some steps in her time there including requiring “sober hosts” when junior staff were drinking alcohol.

It was a positive move, she says, but appeared to shift responsibility instead of addressing what she perceives as a “lad culture” among senior leadership.

For example, the woman says another partner at the firm dressed up as a woman for a work party and used balloons for his breasts, comparing their size to that of his female colleagues.

“I felt very uncomfortable, but I also didn’t feel like I could do anything about it … I think a lot of people have gotten away with this kind of thing for a long time.”

Auckland Women Lawyers’ Association president Karlene O’Halloran tells the Star-Times the case is “disappointing but not anomalous”.

“There remains a culture within the legal profession that allows, and to a certain extent facilitates, this kind of behaviour.

“It is not shocking, but it is embarrassing that the profession continues to be diminished by male practitioners that cannot behave appropriately at firm functions.”

Law Society chief executive Katie Rusbatch applauded “the courage of the affected parties in supporting the disciplinary process”.

Rusbatch said that a survey in 2023 had shown a drop in sexual harassment incidents in the legal industry, but added that “the only acceptable number for incidents of sexual harassment is zero”.

“Over the last five years the proportion of lawyers who have encountered sexual harassment as a bystander has dropped to 19 per cent,” the survey said.

The Buddle Findlay case follows multiple high profile controversies, including that of ex-Anderson Lloyd’s Dean Palmer who told the tribunal he was a “creature of his generation” after it was found he took interns to a sex shop after a boozy lunch where he had pet their knees and stroked their hair.

Buddle chief Philip Maitland told media that providing a “safe and respectful workplace” was a “top priority“ at his firm, saying “our culture reflects our expectations that our leaders and people uphold what we value”.

Yet, the tribunal heard that at a second party two weeks after the first, Mulligan again over indulged in alcohol, this time dressing up as a Christmas nativity shepherd with a wooden “crook” - an implement he went on to poke his colleague’s bottoms with.

According to the ruling, one male staffer became so frustrated at having his rear end continually prodded, he told a co-worker he was going to punch Mulligan, but was ultimately dissuaded from doing so.

“[Mulligan] also told the [young man] that he should dump his girlfriend because there was ‘so much hot pussy at the firm’,” the ruling says.

A summer clerk, named in the ruling as Ms D, described Mulligan having “poked her up the bottom”, but Mulligan disputed that saying it was “just a playful tap”, “outside the clothes”.

The tribunal called that an “unacceptable minimisation”, that “reinforced the lack of respect”.

At the party, Mulligan continued to make “inappropriate comments” to Ms D, telling her he should have stayed at a client lunch because there was “so many hot bitches - way better than here”.

“Attempts to restrain [him] from making similar comments were ignored,” the ruling says.

Mulligan went on to say to Ms D that he loved going to a particular bar because he was “always guaranteed to get a blowjob there”.

At the hearing, it was put to Mulligan that he had presented himself to junior solicitors as a single bachelor, but he insisted that “as a happily married man who hugely valued his marriage and his wife”, he wouldn’t have said that.

The tribunal notes that Ms D became “particularly uncomfortable” when Mulligan repeatedly put his arm around her and kissed her on the head.

“Towards the end of the night, [Mulligan] was dancing in a sexualised way facing Ms D, with his hand moving around his crotch,” the ruling says.

“Ms D described feeling as though she was at a strip show and was “dumbfounded” because it was ‘completely inappropriate for a work function’.”

Speaking to the Star-Times, the young lawyer says she and her peers observed the behaviour throughout the evening and approached senior staff members.

“We went over to a partner … and said ‘aren’t you seeing this?,’ Don’t you think we might need to do something?”

According to the ruling, a female colleague told Mulligan “you need to leave [her] alone, that’s disgusting behaviour” to which he responded, “Oh it’s just a joke, it’s funny”.

But, the young lawyer tells the Star-Times that what she found most disappointing was Mulligan’s return to the office on Monday, as if nothing had happened - with one of the complainants having to sit at a desk opposite his.

“She came in and got really distressed and another girl and I had to console her in the bathroom.”

The young lawyer says she and others approached senior associates calling out the “inappropriate” situation, after which Mulligan was asked to leave the office and work from home.

“And my view is that if the junior staff hadn't pushed for all of these things, that nothing would have happened,” she says.

A few days later, several teams got called into a meeting, she says, and were told that HR would be asking staff questions about what had happened.

“They opened the meeting by saying ‘we know you’ll all be upset because [Mulligan] is a great guy and he’s worked here for such a long time time and we all enjoy working with him’, which I thought was inappropriate,” the woman tells the Star-Times.

“I thought it was tone deaf … people who had been affected by his behaviour were there in the room. I think it would have made them feel like they can’t be honest about how it affected them.”

Buddle Findlay’s Philip Maitland told the Star-Times “we were deeply disappointed that a partner behaved this way and took immediate and decisive action at the time.”

He suggested that junior staff were able to raise their concerns thanks to a “strong and supportive culture” at the firm.

“A thorough investigation was undertaken, and the ex-partner was not permitted to return to the office, and has not been a partner of the firm since early 2021.

“We continue to be deeply saddened by the impact the ex-partner had on those affected and sincerely regret that it took place.”

Maitland added that '60% of our people are women' and firm 'takes complaints seriously' and 'always investigates' where necessary.

Meanwhile, in the intervening years Mulligan has continued to practise, benefiting from a tribunal-ordered suppression of his identity - until now.

According to the tribunal’s penalty decision document, Mulligan referred himself to a psychologist and has abstained from alcohol - earning him the “least restrictive” penalty of a 15-month suspension.

Yet, the tribunal noted Mulligan did not plead guilty, resulting in “unfortunate lengthy processes … meaning victims had the spectre of having to give evidence hang over them for more than four years”.

And, according to the Law Society, Mulligan substantially delayed proceedings by appealing to both the Legal Complaints Review Officer and seeking a judicial review in the High Court.

When the Star-Times approached Mulligan for comment at his home in Ponsonby, he said he had nothing to add to a statement prepared by his lawyer.

The statement says “we all make mistakes [and] I believe I have been held to account for mine, with this process being more challenging than may be evident … I remain embarrassed by my actions and their impact on my colleagues.”

He adds that he is looking forward to resuming practice following the suspension and believes the experience will enable him to do so “even better” than before.

The young lawyer, meanwhile, tells the Star-Times she feels that the tribunal penalty could have been stronger, and shows the legal industry still has a culture of “minimisation”.

“I think in the profession, if we are going to stamp this out, we need to have some people struck off for it because it’s not being dealt with as seriously as it should be.”

It’s a sentiment echoed by Auckland Women Lawyers’ Association president Karlene O’Halloran who says “stronger penalties are required to denounce and deter”.

“Factors such as alcohol consumption and social anxiety do not excuse, justify nor entitle anyone to inflict harm on junior members of his firm in the way he did.”

Some of the tribunal members who heard Mulligan’s case also felt there was “still a degree of insight to be gained by [him] as to the seriousness of his conduct,” according to their penalty ruling.

“[Mulligan] attempted to paint himself as someone whose humour was generally self-deprecating, but we were unable to see any examples of this,” the tribunal said.

“The humour implied that the junior staff enjoyed being sexual playthings to senior staff. He abused his position of power.”