How a top lawyer repeatedly sexually harassed junior colleagues ‒ and got away with it

Saturday, 6 December 2025

For at least four years, with at least five women, a senior lawyer did things he admits were ‘reprehensible’. The damage he did was extraordinary. But he escaped penalty and publicity, and continues to practise. Mike White investigates the disturbing and alarming story of Mr H.

What he did

He twice grabbed and restrained a lawyer he supervised, and tried to kiss her.

After a mid-winter Christmas party, he tried to kiss another staff member in the back of a taxi.

After a staff event, he attempted to kiss another fellow lawyer who was just six months into her career.

After lunch with a client, he began asking another lawyer about her sex life, and detailed his own sexual exploits, using “language of an unwelcome nature”.

After working late at the law firm’s office, he suggested to another senior lawyer, “let’s be naughty”.

All the women were in their 20s or early 30s.

He was about 20 years older than them.

These are only some of the things he is alleged to have done.

But these are all ones he admits, or doesn’t deny.

What he did to them

One woman was so badly affected, she left the law firm.

She was diagnosed with PTSD.

She gave up the area of law she was practising because she feared having to deal with him.

She now chooses to work with predominantly women.

She was so emotionally distressed by the events, she had to abandon fertility treatment.

She attributes what happened to her for the collapse of her marriage.

Another became so affected by his “terrible” behaviour, she tried to avoid him where possible, despite him being her boss.

She lasted only two years before quitting, describing the situation as “horrible”.

She lost confidence professionally, and became socially isolated.

Another was left shaken, and subsequently had “a meltdown” after Mr H attempted to kiss her, but was too scared to make a complaint given it was her first law job.

What happened to him

Nothing.

The story of what this senior lawyer did to at least five women goes back to 2013, when he attempted to kiss a 26-year-old staff member at the law firm he worked at in the back of a taxi.

But it wasn’t until 2018 that an official investigation into him began.

Suppression orders mean The Post can’t name him, or any of the women affected by his actions, but High Court documents called him Mr H, so that’s what he is referred to in this story.

In 2018, Mr H referred himself to the Law Society, the body governing lawyers in New Zealand, after one of the complainants insisted the law firm refer his “ongoing sexual harassment” and “unreasonable behaviour” to the body.

Mr H, a partner at the firm, stepped down, and paid a settlement to the lawyer.

The Law Society began examining Mr H’s past, and discovered four other women who claimed they had been harassed sexually and verbally by him, with incidents stretching back to 2013.

Eventually, its Standards Committee laid seven charges of misconduct, involving five separate women, and recommended Mr H be referred to the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal, the body that can censure, suspend or strike off lawyers.

But, despite admitting most of the charges, and accepting his behaviour was 'reprehensible', Mr H went to the Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO), an independent person, similar to an Ombudsman, who can reconsider Standards Committee decisions.

In 2024, the LCRO ruled that because the Law Society had taken four years to complete its investigation, and because some information hadn’t been released to Mr H, the process had been unfair. He reversed the Standards Committee decision to refer Mr H to the Disciplinary Tribunal, and suppressed his name.

While he considered Mr H’s behaviour “unsatisfactory”, it fell short of disgraceful or dishonourable misconduct, and the LCRO effectively considered Mr H had suffered sufficient punishment.

In making this judgment, the LCRO suggested the fact none of the women had themselves complained to the Law Society may mean they didn’t consider Mr H’s actions that serious.

In addition, he suggested the passage of time, up to seven years since the incidents in one case, might have affected “the reliability of each person’s recall”.

He also took into account Mr H’s claims of improved sobriety and counselling.

“Mr H has done what he can to atone for his conduct. Mr H has taken steps to ensure similar conduct does not occur in the future.”

The LCRO also detailed an apology from Mr H.

“I am deeply ashamed that I appear before the committee in respect of these issues. I wish to extend my sincere apologies to my former female colleagues.

“No one should ever be subjected to the type of behaviour I engaged in. It is reprehensible and I am extremely remorseful for my conduct.

“I have let my family, myself, my former staff, and partners down, together with my profession. I have been hypocritical with my values. I would be devastated if my children endured such behaviours during their careers.”

Despite this, and despite admitting most of the charges, when the Law Society challenged the LCRO’s decision in the High Court, Mr H resisted it, involving two lawyers, including a KC, to represent him.

And Justice Christian Whata rejected virtually all the Law Society’s judicial review arguments, saying the LCRO was within his rights not to send Mr H to the Disciplinary Tribunal.

He pointed to the time taken to investigate Mr H, saying “the process adopted in this case is an exemplar of what not to do, involving a rolling maul of investigators and long periods of inactivity.”

The only error he raised was the LCRO's suggestion the affected women did not consider the events sufficiently significant to complain earlier.

As he couldn't be sure how this may have affected the LCRO's decision-making, 'I have resolved that the matter must be referred back to him for reconsideration on this specific point … The judicial review application is otherwise dismissed.'

The LCRO reconfirmed his decision.

The Law Society decided not to appeal the decision, despite having concerns with the LCRO’s reasoning, and closed the case.

Mr H’s identity remains shrouded.

His actions remain unknown to colleagues and clients.

He continues practising, and remains well-regarded amongst the uninformed.

Life for Mr H carries on, much the same.

Unlike life for the women he’d harassed and affected.

Pulling back the veil

The Post has spoken with two of the women sexually harassed by Mr H. They have name suppression, and were referred to in court documents as Ms A and Ms D, so, for simplicity, will be called Amy and Daniella in this story.

They didn’t work together, or know each other, and their experiences with Mr H occurred at different times.

Both were in their early 30s when they worked for Mr H.

Both were married.

Both were trying to start families and going through fertility treatment.

Both left the law firm because of Mr H after years of feeling harassed and bullied.

In the recent High Court judgment, which confirmed Mr H would face no punishment other than a finding of “unsatisfactory conduct”, their experiences are summarised in a few short sentences.

But the descriptions lack important details and context, and are only some of the many things they claim Mr H did to them that they told the Law Society about. More importantly, they don’t describe the dramatic effects on their lives that Mr H’s actions have had.

So, here are their stories.

Amy

It was just a few months after starting at Mr H’s law firm when he came into the office one afternoon and instructed Amy and a female law clerk to meet him in the carpark, as they were all going for a drink.

Amy and the clerk had done some pro bono work for Mr H’s girlfriend, and this was a thank you for that, Mr H said.

After the bar, where Mr H’s girlfriend joined them, Amy, the law clerk and Mr H went back to his house briefly. When Amy went into the kitchen to get a glass of water, Mr H followed her, and as she turned around, he grabbed her wrists, held them to her side, and tried to kiss her.

Amy told him “No” several times, pushed past him and went back into the lounge, collected her belongings, and told the clerk they were leaving.

The clerk had called her mother to pick her up, and went outside. But as Amy tried to follow her, Mr H pushed the door closed and pushed her up against the wall and again attempted to kiss her.

She yelled at him to stop, and asked him to let go of her.

Outside, Amy called a taxi, but Mr H then came out onto the street, and followed her as she walked away.

Petrified, Amy began running, eventually hiding in a bus stop, and calling her husband. Mr H followed her but turned the wrong way, and Amy stayed on the phone with her husband until a taxi arrived.

When Amy confronted Mr H about the incident two days later at work, (and also in court documents) Mr H said he couldn’t remember the incident, but didn’t deny it. Amy made clear to Mr H that this behaviour was never to happen again.

However, Amy claims Mr H continued with sexually inappropriate behaviour, and comments that left her feeling objectified.

It became increasingly difficult for her to get Mr H, who was her supervisor, to review her work, making it harder for her to meet her budgets. Eventually, he agreed to do it, if she went to lunch with him. Amy declined, but Mr H insisted.

When she took the files to lunch to be reviewed, she says Mr H laughed and said they weren’t there to work. She says Mr H proceeded to get very drunk and engaged in inappropriate conversation and conduct.

Amy relied on Mr H for much of her work, and says she felt extremely vulnerable and powerless. She eventually told Mr H that they were leaving and asked restaurant staff to call a taxi.

Mr H initially refused to get out of the taxi when it dropped him home, and then tried to pull Amy out of the taxi to get her to come inside.

When he finally left, the taxi driver was so concerned he asked if Amy was OK. She burst into tears.

Mr H denied this entire incident.

Amy claims Mr H continued his advances but when these were rejected, it led to bullying over several months, which she felt was designed to force her to resign.

Amy left the firm at the end of that year, after making a complaint about Mr H, and being paid a settlement by him.

Looking back, she feels like she was a lamb sent to the slaughter: While others say Mr H’s behaviour had been widely discussed in legal circles, Amy says she had just shifted to the area, and nobody warned her what she was stepping into.

“There was just no hope for me. The book was written before I started.”

But even after Amy quit, she couldn’t leave behind the effects of what Mr H did to her.

Attempting to start a family, Amy felt she had no option but to cancel a crucial IVF implant appointment when everything came to a head, her mental health continued to deteriorate, and she was left feeling suicidal.

In the end, the stress of what was happening meant she didn’t continue with IVF, her marriage fell apart, and she had to change her field of law, which she loved, to avoid meeting Mr H.

“I had to walk away from having a baby, and, ultimately the way things have unfolded mean I’m now never going to be a mother. That’s massive.”

She was diagnosed with PTSD, and continues to take medication for panic attacks in the workplace.

“It continues to impact on my life, and I've never got to tell that story throughout this process. None of this has been heard.”

What was heard in decisions and court documents, was the hardship Mr H had faced, the emotional effect on him, his rehabilitation, and his feelings, she says.

The LCRO never contacted the victims to understand the impact on them, then made what Amy describes as an ugly assumption that because they didn’t complain after the incidents, the events may have been only minor.

“That really hurt a lot when I read that.”

Amy says given what she was going through, she chose not to be the lead complainant in the investigation, trusting the Law Society would deal with Mr H.

“My mental health was my priority, and I just wanted to move on.”

But even as a witness, Amy felt shut out of the process.

“Throughout all this, I didn’t have a voice. And, seven years later, I still feel like I don’t have a voice.

“I downplay it a lot in my mind - you have to do that to get on with life.

“I grow around it, but the trauma and hurt and upset I feel from all of these things doesn’t actually go away. I’m left with the effects of his actions forever.”

Amy says she will remain wary of men in the workplace, and now chooses to work with predominantly women teams so she feels safe.

“And to hear the LCRO empathise with [Mr H] and make comments about how this hasn’t had an impact on me - it impacts on me every day of my life, every decision I make, the way I have structured my career and my life, the pathways I’ve now taken.”

To have all this reduced to a few perfunctory sentences in a court judgment upholding Mr H’s rights, was a final insult, Amy says.

“And I hate there’s this judgment that diminishes what happened, and what I experienced. We’re just so lost in all of this.”

“I’m a nobody in this, I’m f…..g ‘Ms A.’ That’s it. I’m not a person. I don’t have a context, a story.

“I wanted to have my say throughout this process. But I never got to do that.”

Daniella

Daniella knew about Mr H before she joined the firm.

She’d heard the rumours, been told the stories, been warned about his drinking and womanising, been warned to be careful.

But the job she’d been offered was really good.

“I didn’t want to go. But I did.”

Mr H was on the interview panel, and became her supervising partner.

Problems started within a few months.

The High Court judgment only details one incident involving Daniella. But she says there were many other examples of Mr H’s inappropriate comments and behaviour she considered were bullying, which she reported to the Law Society.

In November 2014, Mr H insisted they go to lunch, to meet with a client.

Afterwards, Mr H wanted to continue on to a bar, but Daniella declined.

Mr H called her an “ice queen” and “frigid”, then began asking about her sex life, and discussing his own sexual exploits.

“And it was just horrible. He just got really, really drunk, and it was so awkward. In the middle of the day.”

When she finally convinced Mr H to leave, he wanted to drive, but Daniella took the keys from him and drove them back to the office.

“And I remember just not knowing what to do.”

In the court judgement, Mr H says he may have “used language of an unwelcome nature” but didn’t intend to cause any offence, and didn’t understand Daniella had taken any offence.

But Daniella says she made it very clear the conversation was inappropriate and she wanted to leave.

The inappropriate remarks about Daniella continued, she claims.

At a team function, Mr H got drunk.

Knowing Daniella was undergoing IVF treatment, he called her “a barren bitch” in front of everyone.

Daniella reported this to the firm’s partners, but didn’t push her complaint, as the fertility treatment process was causing her enough stress.

She only lasted two years at the firm.

“I just grew more and more frustrated with him and how he was allowed to behave and how the partners just ignored it and colluded with him. I just couldn’t stay - it was just horrible.”

Daniella says she’s tried to put what happened behind her.

“I approach life really not wanting to be a victim. I just wanted to try and forget about it and move on.

“But it had a massive, massive impact on me in terms of confidence and hiding away.”

Daniella says the LCRO seems to have bent over backwards to make excuses for Mr H, and focus on the impact on him - almost as if he was the victim.

“He’s continued to practise, he has anonymity - I don’t see how it’s really impacted his life.

“I don’t think they realise the amount of shame you’re experiencing in trying to get over it.”

Others affected by Mr H’s behaviour, who Daniella is aware of, felt they couldn’t speak out, because they were worried about their career progression, or how it might affect them becoming a partner at the firm.

Daniella can’t comprehend how delays in the process helped let Mr H escape serious punishment, and doesn’t believe he should be practising law.

Moreover, she questions why, when some of the things Mr H has admitted to that she believes are potentially criminal acts, he couldn’t even be held accountable at the lawyers’ disciplinary tribunal.

“How has this been able to happen? I just don’t understand it.”

‘We’ll be the tip of the iceberg’

Both Amy and Daniella are left feeling angry, frustrated, and astonished that the process meant to hold Mr H to account, failed so badly.

For context, here are some other cases of lawyer misconduct that did make the disciplinary tribunal, and headlines.

James Gardner-Hopkins, a partner at law firm Russell McVeagh, was suspended for three years for inappropriate touching and behaviour with female lawyers, in a case that shone a spotlight on the legal profession’s standards.

Christchurch lawyer Dean Palmer was suspended for 18 months for sexually harassing young female colleagues.

Buddle Findlay partner Patrick Mulligan was suspended for 15 months for lewd comments and poking colleagues in the bottom with a shepherd’s crook at a Christmas function.

Amy says it’s hard to see that what Mr H did, doesn't fit within the same kinds of behaviour that resulted in these lawyers being suspended.

Neither Amy nor Daniella were direct complainants to the Law Society about Mr H. They trusted their professional body would handle the investigation and disciplinary process, while they remained as witnesses, and tried to get on with their lives.

If the Law Society had acted promptly and appropriately, Amy believes there is little doubt Mr H would have faced the Disciplinary Tribunal, with the possibility of being suspended or struck off for misconduct - especially given he admitted most of the incidents.

She says the reason she wanted the Law Society to consider the case was “because it’s never just one woman, but I wanted to be the last woman.

“When men get to the point where they are holding someone’s arms, restraining them so they can kiss them, this is not the first time they’re doing this: They’ve got away with this so many times they feel bold enough to behave like this.

“It won’t just be us. We’ll be the tip of the iceberg.”

Mr H was sent a number of questions, including whether he would allow himself to be named, given his acceptance of many inappropriate actions, his statements of strong remorse, and his apologies to the women he has affected.

“Well, I certainly don’t waive name suppression, at all,” he told The Post when contacted directly.

Beyond that, Mr H said he had “no comment to make”.

Slow change, or no change?

Law Society chief executive Katie Rusbatch says Mr H’s conduct was considered serious, and the LCRO’s decision to not refer his case to the Disciplinary Tribunal was “disappointing”, hence why it took the unusual step of judicially reviewing it.

Rusbatch acknowledges delays in the investigation affected the outcome, and says changes have since been made to ensure timeliness.

“We understand the outcome in this case will be disappointing for the affected persons. We recognise the courage it took to come forward and the difficulties caused by the protracted disciplinary process.”

The Law Society is currently consulting on amendments to the act controlling lawyer misconduct, including whether those charged should have a right of review.

“We are committed to addressing sexual harassment in the profession. Such conduct is unacceptable, and no one should experience it, whether in the workplace or elsewhere,” Rusbatch says.

Nearly 65 per cent of the legal profession who were in their first seven years after qualification were female, and a 2023 survey showed a drop in incidents of sexual harassment, which Rusbatch says indicates the profession is changing for the better.

But neither Amy nor Daniella accept this.

Despite high-profile cases like Gardner-Hopkins and the #MeToo movement it helped spark in New Zealand, Daniella doubts things are much different now.

“There’s still a lot of victim blaming. There’s still a lot of support for men in those positions.”

The saddest thing was that the failure of their case made it even less likely women lawyers would come forward when harassed and abused, she says.

Moreover, nobody from the Law Society had contacted them for years. Other than the occasional cold email from the society’s lawyers, they have felt left out of the process and abandoned.

“There was just a complete lack of communication. A lack of explanation about the process,” Daniella says.

“A lack of care towards the people his behaviour had impacted on significantly - that troubled me a lot.”

Amy says there is never going to be a world where men like Mr H didn’t exist.

“There’s always going to be bad eggs in the mix.

“Whether the profession has changed or not isn’t the question here - it’s the processes and systems that are meant to protect women who are unfortunately exposed to these behaviours that’s important. And at the moment the Law Society is showing me they are not equipped to deal with this.

“This process has come to an end, and this man has not been held responsible for actions he admits to.

“This case is not even a matter of ‘he said/she said’, and you don’t know who’s right or wrong. He’s admitted his actions, and he's not been held accountable.”

While Mr H says he has reformed and was safe to continue practising, this was based entirely on his own assurances, Amy says.

Amy has a female family member currently studying law, and dreads what might happen to her in the profession she will soon join.

“I’d like to think she’ll be safe. I’d like to know that even if these things happen, the men will be held accountable. But at present, I’ve got no confidence that’s going to happen.

“None of us are under any illusion that Mr H is going to change.

“But if we can change the processes that are there to support women, that's the thing that’s important, and that’s the change I’d like to see.”

The LCRO declined to comment, saying his decisions were confidential.

Failed at every turn

Genevieve Hancock, the Wellington Women Lawyers’ Association convenor, said the women in this case had courageously come forward, been let down, and denied the opportunity to see Mr H’s conduct properly assessed.

“These women have been failed at every turn - by the system, by the profession, and by the disciplinary process.

“The result is devastating for them, and for confidence in our profession.

“We are deeply concerned that the Law Society’s processes remain unfit to deal with sexual assault and abuse, despite the Law Society’s own working group recommending urgent reform seven years ago.”

Hancock pointed to the “chilling effect” the outcome of this investigation would have on other women considering whether to report misconduct.

“WWLA has long fought for safer workplaces for women lawyers. This case shows just how badly the profession continues to fail its women.”

The Auckland Women Lawyers’ Association president, Karlene O’Halloran, said Mr H’s behaviour “is not anomalous in the industry.

“There remains a culture within the legal profession that allows, and to a certain extent facilitates, this kind of behaviour. Alcohol consumption does not excuse, justify, nor entitle anyone to inflict harm on other members of the profession.

“It is incumbent on the profession, the Law Society, law firms, and individual lawyers to denounce this type of behaviour as unacceptable.”

O’Halloran said the Law Society’s investigation “was marred by cumulative procedural defects that undermined both fairness and confidence in the process,' and the shortcomings fell well below the “efficient, even‑handed, and transparent approach” required under the statutory scheme.

In The Post on Monday, read how the women sexually harassed by Mr H then mistakenly had their names released publicly following a High Court bungle, adding further pain to their experience.