Relationships at Work: Lawyers in UK Divided on Law Firm Policy
Whether office romances should be disclosed, what constitutes a relationship and the potential risks involved have become contentious issues.
February 20, 2020 at 08:02 AM
6 minute read
Lawyers in the U.K. are split on how firms should handle workplace relationships in the wake of the #MeToo movement, according to a survey by Law.com International's U.K. arm, Legal Week.
More than half of the 105 respondents, most of whom are based in the U.K., said that they had been in relationships with people at work at some point in their life. But there was little consensus on how involved employers should act in such situations.
Some 43% felt that there should be some form of policy about reporting relationships to management, while a further 7% said they believe relationships at work should be banned completely.
But 30% said that as long as people are happy then it is none of their firm's business and management should only get involved if things go wrong. A further 18% felt that organizations should have no say in their lawyers' personal lives at all, including monitoring their relationships.
When asked what they were most concerned about regarding relationships in the workplace the biggest fear was of a potential scandal that would bring the whole organization into disrepute. There was relatively less concern about a relationship upsetting the team dynamic or encouraging biased behavior.
One lawyer said, "Transparency is necessary so that adequate steps can be taken to mitigate consequences, [for example] involvement in career progression discussions and perceived favoritism."
Another added: "Even if there is no actual bias (or harassment), where one person is more senior this is a risky area for the firm and for team morale."
But the majority of comments from respondents cited concerns over too much intrusion by firms into a worker's private life.
"Human nature suggests you can't ban something like this absolutely," said one respondent. "Any group of people forced to live or work together in close proximity for long hours will form relationships: there is nothing necessarily sinister about it."
"Bringing legitimate, mutual, consensual relationships into the cross-hairs is lazy, and groups something normal and harmless with genuine risks of people taking advantage of their positions or unduly pressuring people: nothing stops that from being unacceptable."
Another added that an outright ban on workplace relationships would contribute to a "culture of secrecy" and "force things underground".
Full disclosure
Currently, many top firms in the U.K., including the likes of Linklaters, Clifford Chance and DLA Piper, require their lawyers to tell their human resources departments when a relationship begins.
In what is another grey area for firms looking to formulate a company policy on the issue, described by one as a "minefield", lawyers were also divided on when exactly a relationship begins.
Four out of 10 respondents said that a relationship would begin as soon as one of the people thinks of it as a relationship, while 37% believed it would start as soon as the relationship became physical in any way.
Slightly more than half of the respondents said they had, at some point, been in a relationship with a colleague. Of those, only a third disclosed it to their superiors. One lawyer recalled when they started at their firm that there was a complete ban, but that it was "widely breached by happy consensual relationships".
Nearly a third of all respondents said they did not know what their firm's current policy was, while slightly less than a quarter said their firm required them to report relationships.
Of the people who had been in a workplace relationship at some point, 72% said that one person in their relationship had initially been in a more senior role than the other.
However, the majority of lawyers also pointed out in the survey that workplace relationships between people of differing seniority are more frowned upon now than they were 10 years ago, with several referencing the #MeToo movement and greater awareness of inappropriate behavior as key drivers towards changing attitudes.
Commenting on such situations, one lawyer said: "In my view, senior individuals ought to be aware that it is simply wise to avoid liaisons of this sort, if at all possible."
One person added that law firms now need to take more of an interest in staff conduct because the Solicitors Regulation Authority has "extended [its] reach into matters outside [its] 'traditional' scope."
'Excessive and intrusive'
The prevalence of office romances was referred to by one respondent who said their firm "seems to have more success than some dating agencies."
One respondent, who said that they began what would become a 20-year relationship with someone who was a partner when they were a senior associate, feels that the policy their firm has implemented "in response to the #MeToo trend is excessive and intrusive."
"There are literally dozens of couples, many even now married, at my firm," said another. "Are we really implying there is anything even remotely wrong with these? This seems yet another issue where the actions of a few, have a disproportional impact on the many—when the many have neither done anything wrong nor risk it."
Another added: "We all work here, but it is just work. Work is not the holy grail and guardian of all life decisions."
Another said: "Banning workplace relationships will leave a lot of lawyers single and unhappy!"
Others disagreed. One lawyer called relationships at work "highly non-professional", while another said, "there may be issues of favoritism or bullying if things go wrong."
One commented: "In my personal view becoming involved with colleagues normally does not end well for various reasons. Everybody should know this and respect this."
Yet another lawyer said that they could see the issue from both sides. One the one hand, they had witnessed the breakdown of a relationship between two partners at the firm, which they described as "utterly bizarre, intolerable… and positively divisive" for the rest of the team. But on the other hand, they said, they met their wife through work.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'That's Disappointing': Only 11% of MDL Appointments Went to Attorneys of Color in 2023
7 minute readConfusion Over New SEC Cyber Rules Leading Firms to Overstate Attack Readiness
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250