Allen & Overy (A&O) partner Mark Mansell has been questioned by MPs over whether he regrets his advice on a historic sexual harassment settlement with disgraced movie producer Harvey Weinstein, as well as the reputational impact of the firm's involvement in the case.

Employment partner Mansell appeared before the Women and Equalities Committee this morning (28 March) for its inquiry into the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) relating to allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace.

He was called to appear after A&O advised Miramax – which Weinstein co-founded – in 1998 when the producer's then-assistant Zelda Perkins accused him of sexual harassment, a role which was detailed in a Financial Times article published last year.

Mansell was asked by committee chair Maria Miller MP whether he regretted the way in which documentation relating to the case had been drawn up, after the committee raised concerns about whether NDAs could be used to prohibit victims from participating in a criminal process.

It emerged during the session that documentation drawn up by Mansell set out a provision which required Perkins to limit her disclosures in cases of civil or criminal legal process.

Asked by Miller whether he regretted drawing up the document in that way, Mansell stated: "If I was looking at dealing with that today, I would make it clearer that the ability to participate in a criminal process was not in any way restricted."

He was also pressed over whether news of the firm's involvement in Zelda Perkins' NDA had been good for A&O's reputation.

Mansell said that while he could not comment on the specifics, any case "where behaviour is criticised and a lawyer or law firm is drawn into that" is "never a good thing for the lawyer or the law firm".

Phillip Davies MP also questioned Mansell over the fees the firm received for its work, with Miller suggesting the committee would write to the firm to request that information.

Perkins, who also appeared before the committee, called for reforms to NDAs, and stated: "I feel let down by the lack of law around them. I'm sure all the lawyers were all working within the legal constraints, but it's more shocking they were able to do that."

She called for a "disincentive" to be created for lawyers to create this type of agreement.

Mansell was joined at the committee by employment partner Tamara Ludlow of Simons Muirhead & Burton, the City law firm that advised Perkins in 1998.

Ludlow and Mansell were asked how the use of NDAs could be improved, with Ludlow stating she would not advise clients to sign an NDA if they were not permitted a copy of it – which Perkins was not allowed.

Mansell added that when lawyers are acting for individuals, they should be as uncombative and as sensitive as possible, recognising that "for somebody to go through harassment is traumatic".

The committee's inquiry comes after the Solicitors Regulation Authority recently warned law firms in England and Wales not to use NDAs to prevent the reporting of professional misconduct within their own businesses, in the wake of several sexual harassment scandals that have rocked the profession.

Baker McKenzie recently commissioned an independent review of its response to a historic allegation of sexual assault of a female associate by a male partner. The associate received a payout and entered into a confidentiality agreement before leaving the firm.