Today (September 30), the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) heard the Solicitors Regulation Authority's (SRA) case against Ryan Beckwith – the first act in a 10-day long hearing against the Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer partner, who stands accused of having engaged in sexual activity with one of his associates without consent.

In the space of two and a half hours, the tribunal heard allegations of a deep-rooted drinking culture at the Magic Circle firm, of partners routinely encouraging junior staff to go for after-work drinks, and footing substantial bar tabs. And of an in-house counsel that encouraged the complainant – known only as Person A – to avoid discussing the matter with people at the firm. 

It heard of a difficult, stressful working relationship between Beckwith and Person A; and of Beckwith's alleged "toxic, harmful, damaging" conduct that had consequences not only for himself and Person A, but for "his firm and the wider profession". 

Following a formal complaint in 2017, Freshfields launched an internal investigation into Beckwith's conduct and placed him on indefinite leave, while elsewhere the partner also lost his senior position as counsel to the ILA, the tribunal heard. 

Riel Karmy-Jones QC, who fronts the SRA's charge against Beckwith, opened the morning by reiterating the details of the SRA's case – which first came to light at a case management hearing in April – and expanding on aspects of the complainant's account that have until now gone largely unexplored.

The SRA's fundamental argument is that Beckwith's conduct constituted a breach of the SRA's principles concerning integrity and public interest, restating that the matter of consent was immaterial to establish whether his conduct had fallen short of behaviour expected.

Beckwith maintains that the matter was private in nature, and was therefore not something for the SDT to consider. 

The accusations against Beckwith centre on two incidents: one that took place in May 2016, and the other in July the same year – both involving Person A.

The first incident

In the first incident, following the successful completion of a project, Freshfields organised a day out for Beckwith's team, which included other partners as well as junior members of the restructuring practice. The "lavish celebration" involved a coach trip to Raymond Blanc's high-end establishment in Oxfordshire – Belmond Le Manoir aux Quat'Saisons. 

In her witness statement, Person A alleges that drinking alcohol started on the coach early in the day, with Beckwith "doling out champagne" as early as "10.30am". Once at lunch, there was more drinking as wine was served, then yet more drinking on the coach trip back to London. Both Beckwith and Person A were, according to Person A's account, "drunk on the bus back".

Once back in London, the group went to a karaoke bar, paid for by the firm according to 'Witness C' – another associate at the firm – then onto another bar after that. Here, Person A says Beckwith "put his arm around her, leant down and tried to kiss her", which she says "was not wanted, nor invited". Person A says the experience left her feeling embarrassed and she did not mention it to anyone else at the bar. 

The following day, Beckwith is alleged to have sent an email round to staff who attended the outing promising to reimburse them for any drinks they bought. Person A responded thanking him, joking about the number of Jaegerbombs they had consumed. 

In a separate account by 'Witness B', Person A said that Beckwith "looked as though he was about to kiss her". 

At this point in the hearing, details started to emerge around Beckwith's fraught working relationship with Person A. He was her main supervising partner and her mentor and, though they had an "amicable" relationship, she "didn't particularly like him", and was unhappy with the "long stressful hours" at the firm, in which Beckwith routinely criticised her interactions and was told to "be mindful of her career". She also alleges that he once "commented on her coat". She had at one point considered making a formal request to move to a different part of the firm, but "was worried what the firm might think". 

In June 2016 – a month after the first incident – Person A decided to resign, with the Oxfordshire incident being the final "nail in the coffin". Following her formal resignation, she had a "fraught and uncomfortable meeting" with Beckwith in which she wanted to tell him of her unhappiness and her discomfort over the "Le Manoir" incident, but was "not brave enough to do so". 

The second incident

The second alleged incident took place across July 1 and 2, 2016 – while she was still an employee at the firm and seeing out her notice period. By this point, Person A had secured a position at another employer. Person A and fellow associate Witness C went out for lunch on a working Friday, at which Person A had a drink with her meal. The pair then went onto The Harrow pub, across the road from Freshfields' London headquarters, and a regular choice of venue for Freshfields staff's post-work drinks. Person A said she was in high spirits and "looking forward to pastures new". 

While in The Harrow, the trio of Person A, Witness C and Beckwith sat on bar stools by a window, as Beckwith bought drinks "at a steady rate", including wine, Jaegerbombs and beer. Person A said it was "unusual for the respondent [Beckwith] to still be there". With the expectation that she would go home after, Person A went to the toilet and met Beckwith on the way back to the bar. 

There is conflict around exactly what happened regarding an alleged kiss that took place in the corridor on the way back from the bar. Person A does not recall a kiss, while Witness B – Person A's flatmate – had in her original evidence recalled being told by Person A that she and Beckwith had kissed in the corridor.

But, the SRA says, in her latest evidence, Witness B says that Person A said at the time that Person A had "pushed Beckwith away". Beckwith, meanwhile, maintains that it was in fact Person A that had made the advances, that "she stroked his arm" and that she waited for him outside the toilet, after which they kissed in a corridor "urgently and passionately".

Person A stresses in her statement that her memory is "hazy" but recalls Beckwith assisting her to her Uber at 12.04am. She recalls Beckwith saying he would share her ride, even though he lives some distance away from Person A's home. Person A says she believes she was more drunk than "she had ever been", and that she was "significantly and dangerously impaired". 

She walked to her door, and he accompanied her, saying he needed to use the bathroom. She says he followed her up the stairs, when she stumbled. She told him he could use her flatmate's bathroom. 

According to her statement, she recalls sitting at the edge of her bed with "no lower clothing on" as he sat on the floor by her bed. She says she remembers feeling confused and embarrassed and tried to pull her shirt down to cover up. She allegedly told him: "Why are you here? I'm not interested in you." To which he responded: "That's fair enough." 

At a later point, he started to touch her breasts – she recalls him saying "nice tits", and then "touched her intimately". He then "moved to be on top of her", and she tried to say "you're married and a partner at the firm", but says this may have come out "jumbled". 

She says she does not remember if sex happened. Beckwith allegedly let himself out in the morning, after asking Person A to keep the matter between themselves.

Recounting the respondent's evidence, the SRA said Beckwith was "distraught", and called Person A's account of her level of intoxication as "completely untruthful" and a "fabrication", saying she at no point stumbled and was able to find her key and open the front door herself.

Person A and her flatmate – Witness B – were due to go to Henley Royal Regatta the following morning, with a hairdresser scheduled to come to the flat later that morning. Person A said she woke up feeling "numb". Witness B recalls Person A was "discombobulated" and "looked pretty rough". Person A then considered whether to tell Witness B what had happened, then decided to mention it at a lunch stop on the way to Henley. 

Witness B said Person A said she had "never been so drunk" and "looked quite frightened", "off-colour", and "tried to put a brave face on it". 

Person A in her statement said she "felt ashamed, devastated and blamed herself". Witness B said she was surprised by what had allegedly happened, as "Person A always found [Beckwith] unattractive". 

Person A said in her statement that she chose not to mention the incident at work immediately, as "one never hears about it going well for female accusers" and that it "would be the end of her career".

She alleges she instead returned to work and "tried to behave as normal", as Beckwith allegedly said that he did not want "it to be awkward" between them. She cried, then left the office. Beckwith was not present in the office on Person A's last day on July 8. 

Later in 2016, in September or October, Person A confided in Freshfields' in-house counsel, referred to in the tribunal as AS. Person A had considered AS a friend. However, according to Person A's statement, AS advised her "not to tell anyone at the firm" about the incident. According to the SRA's case, AS was also a friend of the respondent [Beckwith] and his wife, who Beckwith met while an associate at the firm.

Person A then emailed Beckwith to ask for his personal email address. Having received no response for three days, she then emailed his work address, "seeing to get things off her chest". According to her statement, he responded two days later on his private email, saying "I'm upset that you're upset", and suggesting they meet up. However, Person A says the thought of a meetup "made her ill".  

She had thought about reporting the matter to the police, but was "concerned about the invasive nature of a police investigation". Then in May 2017, she made a formal complaint to Freshfields. During this time, Person A visited a therapist. Freshfields offered to pay for her treatment. 

The firm initiated an investigation, which required Person A to attend four separate meetings between May and July 2017 – a process she says she found "very distressing". The investigation found in favour of Person A and issued Beckwith a formal written warning, telling him that his conduct was an "abuse of his position of responsibility and authority", and if his conduct again fell below the standard expected of him he would be forced into retirement, which he accepted. 

Person A filed her complaint with the SRA in August 2017, fearing that Beckwith would treat other trainees and associates similarly.

The SRA's position is that Beckwith's conduct fell "well below the standard expected of a member of the profession" and brought the profession into disrepute. Though Beckwith has claimed that matters pertaining to his private life should have no bearing on his professional standing, the SRA cited case law in asserting that private matters can be considered when regarding SRA principles, that the SRA's principles on conduct are "defined widely" and encouraged the tribunal to use a "flexible" approach in carrying out "a balancing exercise" between the right to private life and the standards expected of a solicitor.

The substantive hearing is set to take place over 10 days between September 30 and October 11. Tomorrow (October 1), Beckwith's defence – led by Adrian Willaimson QC – will introduce its witnesses as to character. 

The case continues.