SDT

The  Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) heard closing submissions from opposing counsel in the case against Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer partner Ryan Beckwith today (October 8), on day seven of the hearing into his alleged sexual misconduct. 

Beckwith stands accused of conduct "unbecoming of a member of the profession", following two incidents in 2016 involving a junior associate on his team, which culminated in sexual activity that the complainant alleges took place without her consent. 

The tribunal heard from two character witnesses in Beckwith's favour, while the SRA counsel once again looked to underscore Beckwith's alleged actions as unbecoming of a solicitor. The defence attempted to both punch holes in the complainant's evidence and characterise Beckwith as a "good man" who "did not undermine the public's faith in the profession". 

Arguing that his conduct was unbecoming of a solicitor, counsel for the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Riel Karmy-Jones QC asserted that Beckwith's behaviour was "opportunistic and predatory", and that he had "put a spin" on the evidence to put forward "disingenuous arguments", and that he had "adapted his account to fit the evidence". 

She also argued that, by suggesting his actions were only inappropriate from a "marriage perspective", he had "contrived to make his professional failings appear personal". 

Stressing that Person A's evidence has been "consistent throughout", Karmy-Jones in particular drew on Beckwith's "convenient" and "selective" lack of memory, suggesting it was "not credible" that he "cannot recall specifics of an act which caused so much distress to him and his wife", saying that "surely" he will have "replayed the events" in his mind. 

She further suggested that the "distress" Person A was under during her evidence last week at the SDT was a clear indication that "something far worse had happened" than a simple drunken fling between two consenting adults. 

She also described Beckwith's account of the alleged stroke on the arm at The Harrow pub as "wholly incredible", and labelled his behaviour on the night in question in July 2016 as "inappropriate and unacceptable", adding: "The respondent has a distorted and unacceptable view of appropriate behaviour at work events."

Karmy-Jones also drew on the findings of Freshfields' internal investigation, which concluded that Beckwith's conduct had fallen "well below the standard expected of a partner at the firm". Attempting to convince the panel that Beckwith had acted inappropriately, she looked to equate the firm's finding with a pervasive, profession-wide understanding of what could be considered inappropriate behaviour, arguing that the findings were a "barometer" for professional standards, suggesting Freshfields' standards were no higher than those of any other firm.

In response, counsel for the defence, Alisdair Williamson QC, sought to devalue Person A's testimony, pointing in particular to perceived inconsistencies across her evidence. For example, he suggested that in her testimony at the hearing last week, Person A had argued she did not recall Beckwith getting into the Uber from The Harrow pub, but during the firm's investigation said she did recall this, and said she "didn't find it odd". 

He also rebuffed her suggestion that she had fallen several times once she got out of the cab outside her flat, saying "she did not fall" and that she "did not have a mark on her". 

In closing, Williamson implored the panel of judges to decide whether SRA principles had really been breached, again underscoring that the events that took place amounted to nothing more than a "mutual mistake" and that no principles were breached. 

"Is it misconduct to get drunk with a colleague? Is it misconduct to be unfaithful?" he asked the panel, concluding: "It is not, absent evidence of malice." 

"We do not ask our lawyers to exceed the stars," he said. "We do not ask them to be paragons of virtue," adding: "We ask them to maintain standards of the profession, but not of perfection." 

He further suggested that if consent is not at issue, then both Beckwith and Person A might be guilty of misconduct if members of the profession are to be held to standards of sexual behaviour. 

In closing, Williamson said: "[Beckwith] is a good man. A man of integrity. He did not undermine the public faith in the profession."

Earlier in the day, Williamson called on two character witnesses in defence of Beckwith. The first, a man with whom Beckwith trained and practised at Freshfields, said of Beckwith: "He is an upstanding person… you want him in your corner when things are difficult." The witness, known as Person 1, stressed he had never seen Beckwith behaving inappropriately in his 16 years of knowing him, and that one would be "genuinely happy" to see their daughter bring him home. 

A second witness, Person 2, who has known Beckwith for 12 years, became tearful as she too stressed Beckwith's good nature. "He's one of the reasons I work at Freshfields," she said, adding that she too had never borne witness to any inappropriate behaviour by Beckwith towards women. 

The panel are now deliberating over a final decision, with an outcome expected tomorrow.