The majority of partners believe it was right for former Latham & Watkins chair and managing partner Bill Voge to step down from his leadership role in the wake of recent revelations about his personal conduct, but more than 40% of respondents to a Legal Week survey said he should not have resigned from the firm entirely.

Three weeks after Voge voluntarily disclosed "communications of a sexual nature" to the firm's executive committee, which were deemed by Latham to be "not befitting the leader of a firm", the results of the latest Big Question survey suggest that, in the eyes of many partners, he did not entirely deserve his fate.

Voge quit after Latham was confronted with details of his questionable relationship with a woman unconnected to the firm. He reportedly first contacted her with an offer to help her engage in 'Christian reconciliation' due to his membership of US faith-based group the New Canaan Society.

Although they never met, their communications became sexual, and when their relationship soured, the women contacted his lawyer, his family, and lawyers at both Latham and Kirkland & Ellis, according to a Law360 report.

While 52% of respondents to Legal Week's survey – which garnered responses from about 100 partners – said that Voge was correct to step down from his chair and managing partner roles, 41% felt he should not have been made to resign from the firm, with one saying that "the consequences were out of all proportion to what he did".

Another respondent, who claims to have worked for Voge, commented: "I looked up to him as a role model. The guy doesn't even curse. I find it very hard to believe that the situation was so serious that he had to be unceremoniously booted from the firm that he helped to build. The pendulum has swung too far."

However, 25% said it was right for Vogue to resign completely. Moreover, 43% said it was correct for Latham to take the approach it did, even though the allegations were unconnected to the firm's business, although nearly 30% disagreed.

One respondent argued in favour of Latham's move: "This was not just a private affair. Viewed as a whole, his reported actions suggest that he is an untrustworthy person ruled by impulse and not by logic." Another commented: "I think the particular action was necessary because of Voge's leadership position."

Meanwhile, Voge's membership of the New Canaan Society, where he also sat on the national board of directors, raises questions as to whether partners should be required to disclose their involvement in such religious groups.

With regards to whether this is acceptable or not, nearly 40% said yes, while just under a third disagreed. Fifty percent of respondents said partners should not have to declare involvement in societies such as this, while one quarter said they should.

What is and is not appropriate is now being defined by a warped sense of morality

When considering whether law firms should intervene when it comes to inappropriate or illegal behaviour by a partner or staff member, there was broad agreement that firms should get involved in cases of sexual assault or sexual harassment, but only 2% of respondents said firms should intervene in the case of inappropriate sexual relations in someone's personal life – such as an affair – which do not involve anyone in the firm.

Partners were also canvassed on their views on the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), which have recently come under fire in the context of the #MeToo movement.

It emerged last year that Allen & Overy helped to draw up an NDA for the settlement between disgraced movie producer Harvey Weinstein and his former assistant Zelda Perkins, an agreement described by employment lawyers as being "perilously close to unenforceable" after it was published online by the parliamentary committee investigating possible abuse of such agreements

Fifty-one percent of respondents to the survey said the use of an NDA in the Voge affair would not have been appropriate, with just 17% taking the opposite view.

Going forward, the majority of respondents (62%) said the scandal will only affect Latham's reputation in the short term and will cause no long-term damage, while 20% said it will do no damage at all.

The vast majority of survey respondents (83%) said Latham's actions reflected a change in attitude to such matters, and 88% said high-profile examples like this will encourage more firms to be more open and take action against even those at the top of firms.

However, despite these seemingly progressive views, the survey reveals that many partners are unconvinced by the merits of the #MeToo movement, which has prompted many victims to come forward with allegations of sexual harassment and assault, including a number in the legal sector.

Firms including Herbert Smith Freehills, Baker McKenzie and Dentons have recently taken action against partners after claims of inappropriate behaviour, but 57% of respondents to the survey said they think things are going "too far".

One respondent described the episode as "ridiculous", adding: "What is and is not appropriate is now being defined by a warped sense of morality, riled up by the media looking to sensationalise everything."

Another concludes: "The general trend towards more diversity in attitudes has to be good, but care needs to be taken to ensure the pendulum does not swing too far, too fast, as it could push attitudes backwards."