When the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) proceedings against Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer partner Ryan Beckwith began last Friday (April 26), few expected it to be the start of such a dramatic and important dispute.

The day-long case management hearing turned out to be the first phase of a process expected to last at least five months.

It is, according to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), a "first of its kind" hearing, in which Beckwith's defence has attempted to have the case thrown out pending consideration of allegations by police, and in which even the head of the SRA's probe into the matter has had her competence called into question, having to fend off allegations of "collusion" and "witness coaching".

Restructuring partner Beckwith – who is on indefinite leave – is alleged to have engaged in sexual activity with a junior colleague without her consent, the tribunal heard on Friday, resulting in three independent probes, of which the SDT hearing is one; the police are now involved following a referral by the SRA; and Freshfields brought in external lawyers as it conducted its own internal investigation.

The case management hearing gives all parties, as well as the sitting panel, the opportunity to hear all key issues involved in the matter ahead of a substantive hearing, which will take place in September. So far, in Beckwith's hearing there appear to be three notable points at issue: the matter of consent; the credibility of the complainant; and accusations about the conduct of the lead SRA investigator at the time. As not all matters were addressed on Friday, the case management hearing will roll over to June for two more days.

Three Raymond Buildings silk Alasdair Williamson QC – instructed by Brett Wilson – acted for Beckwith, while Riel Karmy-Jones QC – instructed by Capsticks – represented the SRA. Beckwith, who was present at the hearing, was accompanied by his solicitor, Nicholas Brett.

The allegations

With the defence counsel referring the three-strong tribunal panel to written testimony from three witnesses, the complainant herself, and the lead SRA investigator at the time, Hazel Padmore (who also gave oral evidence under cross-examination), the tribunal heard the following allegations against Beckwith:

"You're my married boss…this is such a cliche"

Beckwith and the complainant – whose identity is under wraps, and was referred throughout the hearing as 'Person A' – attended a drinks event with other colleagues. Person A had consumed, according to one witness, six or seven glasses of wine, with Beckwith having purchased a number of them, as well as Jaegerbombs. It is also alleged that at one point Beckwith had kissed Person A in a corridor, and that a witness, thinking he had left, took Beckwith's rucksack and handed it to Freshfields' front desk. Upon leaving the event, Beckwith asked Person A for a lift in her Uber. A witness recalled being told by Person A that she had said to Beckwith: "You're my married boss…this is such a cliche."

The allegation continued that once they reached Person A's home, she discovered, to her surprise, that Beckwith had gotten out of the taxi with her rather than continue onto his own destination. He asked her if he could use her toilet, and accompanied her into the flat. One witness said they were told that, after struggling to get her key in the door, Person A then went up to her room, and Beckwith allegedly soon followed. Beckwith had, according to one witness, asked Person A's flatmate for a condom.

Person A then "has some recollection of waking up", without any clothes on and having "not had a wax". Beckwith was still present. According to a statement, Person A told Beckwith: "You're married, this shouldn't have happened." In her statement, Person A argued that she did not invite Beckwith home, and that he knew sex wasn't on the agenda.

Consent

The tribunal was referred to Person A's statement, in which she said she "did not consent, could not consent, and did not have the capacity to consent" to sexual relations.

The primary discussion point, which took up most of the day, was that of consent. The SRA had earlier removed consent as a matter for the SDT to consider, arguing that it was "outside of their jurisdiction", and that this does not need to be considered because solicitors are subject to "higher standards of sexual conduct".

Leading the defence, Williamson QC refuted the SRA's position, arguing that it was crucial the SDT had jurisdiction to consider consent. Distinguishing between one's public and private life, Williamson QC referred the panel to previous High Court decisions in which, among other things, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the right to a private life – was invoked. Williamson argued that "the SRA cannot say that going for drinks in a pub means you're still acting professionally", saying that one had a right to live one's private life without being held to rigid professional standards.

He concluded his arguments by saying that, as potentially a criminal matter, the case should be tried in the courts. And only once this happens can the SRA have a "complete picture" on which the SDT can determine its jurisdiction. "It is not enough to make sex a matter which engages the SDT's jurisdiction," he argued.

Again attempting to distinguish public and private lives, the defence also argued that, though Beckwith was senior to her, Person A at no point alleged that they had sex due to his position.

"I don't think you're a bad person. We both f*cked up"

According to her statement, following the incident Person A told Beckwith: "I don't think you're a bad person. We both f*cked up."

It is then alleged that, the following day, Person A had her hair done and went to a public sporting event, with Williamson arguing that the testimony so far bears all the hallmarks of "a mutual mistake", following a night of heavy drinking. "People get drunk, wake up, and regret it," he said, adding that people have the right to a private life and also to make mistakes.

Credibility

Williamson QC also called into question Person A's credibility, arguing, among other things, that she may have overstated her drunkenness and that, having one's hair done and attending a sporting event are not the actions of someone who was "dangerously impaired".

The defence also questioned the manner in which the SRA conducted its investigation, summoning to the witness stand the lead investigator at the time, Hazel Padmore – a former criminal defence solicitor and now the head of investigations at the Information Commissioner's Office.

Williamson QC questioned the SRA's handling of the investigation. Having been referred to a string of email exchanges between herself, Person A and other people, as well as other documents, Padmore faced accusations of coaching the witness, and even collusion. Williamson QC claimed there were flaws in attendance notes and also in the approach the SRA took regarding Person A's medical history, having just asked but not required her to provide therapy or GP records. Padmore at one point started to cry and had to stop and was offered a glass of water.

The tribunal was also told that she was criticised for "misrepresenting" the effect that six or seven glasses of wine had on Person A. She is also alleged to have told Person A at one point that there "had been challenges to her [Person A's] credibility". However, Padmore argued she was careful and "mindful of all those risks" connected with communicating with the complainant in the matter. She simply wanted to "allay her concerns" and make it known to the complainant that she took her case "with the utmost seriousness". She did, however, at one point concede that things could have been handled better.

The case continues.

What happens next?

Due to the range of issues being considered, the case management hearing will continue for two more days from June 11, with the substantive hearing to commence on September 23.

In June, matters including disclosure discovery and the SRA counsel's response will be considered.