The U.K.'s Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has published its reasons for fining rather than banning former Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer partner Ryan Beckwith, including that his actions amounted to a 'one-off incident'.

The U.K. regulator tribunal concluded that, while there was enough evidence to fine him, there was little to suggest an outright ban was warranted. It added his alleged misconduct was caused by "a lapse in his judgment" and that the misconduct was "highly unlikely to be repeated".

The judgment follows the nine-day hearing into claims of sexual misconduct against Beckwith, who in October 2019, was fined £35,000 with costs of £200,000 for failing to act with integrity, as required of a member of the profession, and for failing to behave in a way that maintains the public trust.

In the judgment document, published Tuesday, the SDT found that Beckwith owed his junior colleague a duty of care, and that his conduct had "caused harm to the reputation of his profession", as well as his firm. 

However, it also concluded that he did not pose "a future risk to the public". 

In justifying its final decision, the SDT said: "There had been no clients involved and there was no suggestion that the work of the respondent [Beckwith] was anything other than highly competent. Nor did it consider that [he] posed a future risk to the reputation of the profession."

Having provided these and other reasons, the tribunal concluded that the circumstances of the case were not such that "a restriction order was necessary in order to protect the public". 

A spokesperson for the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) said: "We are reviewing the judgement and will then decide on next steps."

Immediately after the judgment was handed down in October, the SRA indicated that it would consider whether or not to appeal the decision following the publication of the SDT's reasons.

How it arrived at its decision

Kiss

The tribunal went through each of the complainant Person A's allegations in turn, including an alleged kiss that took place between Beckwith and the complainant at The Harrow pub on the evening before the alleged sexual activity took place.

Beckwith had argued that the kiss was consensual and "intimate", while Person A denied that a kiss had taken place. Here, the tribunal agreed with Beckwith that a kiss had taken place, but "could not be sure" as to the type of kiss that had occurred—whether it was prolonged, as Beckwith described, or fleeting, as related by a purported witness.

Level of intoxication

Beckwith had alleged that there were no signs Person A was intoxicated at the pub. However, the tribunal rejected this, saying "it would have been clear that Person A was intoxicated and that this had been plain to [him]".

It also found that Person A's judgment and decision-making ability was impaired.

Consent

When it decided to prosecute Beckwith, the SRA determined that consent was not an issue and should therefore not be considered by the tribunal. However, in an attempt to raise the threshold for a misconduct finding, Beckwith argued that consent must be considered by the tribunal in order to determine whether his standard had fallen below that expected of a solicitor.

He asserted that the tribunal would otherwise be unable to consider whether his conduct amounted to a breach of the SRA principles.

However, rejecting his assertions, the tribunal said that it "did not find that a failure to raise consent as an issue… meant that it was unable to consider whether [his] conduct was in breach of the principles".

Final decision 

Concluding, the tribunal decided that, "in all the circumstances, [Beckwith] knew that his conduct, in engaging in sexual activity with Person A, was inappropriate", that he had a duty of care to his junior colleague, and that he had caused reputational harm to both his firm and profession.

In ruling out a ban and opting instead for a fine — albeit a heavy one — the tribunal also found that Beckwith's misconduct was caused by "a lapse in judgment". It said he was unlikely to repeat such misconduct and that he posed no risk to the public, adding that there was no indication that he had coerced or manipulated Person A.

With reporting by Simon Lock.