About half of lawyers argued relationships at work are none of their firm's business. Photo: Shutterstock

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.