Unnerving sexual harassment campaign by suburban Melbourne solicitor ... Female member of staff awarded $100,000 damages ... Secret video of prolonged and repetitive harassment ... Solicitor's denials shot down by his own video ... Transcript - read it and weep
A suburban solicitor in Melbourne has had damages of $100,000 awarded against him after Justice Greg Garde in VCAT found that he repeatedly sexually harassed a female member of his staff.
This was such a nasty case of tiresome harassment that you'd think it was way outside the bounds of acceptability for a legal practitioner.
The Law Institute squibbed it, telling us:
"It may or may not be a conduct issue, therefore the first port of call is with the Legal Services Commissioner."
We were told the flack for the LSC was "not available" and at the time of posting no one has replied to our email seeking comment.
In 2011, on one night alone, the solicitor propositioned the complainant 78 times.
Justice Garde anonymised the proceedings, so they are referred to as GLS v PLP.
The complainant was a woman of Italian descent, aged 50 with three children.
Her complaint related to the time she undertook practical legal training at PLP's firm, as part of her studies for a Graduate Diploma of Legal Practice.
She had completed an LLB degree and had been a legal secretary for 23 years at a large city firm, where PLP previously had been employed as a paralegal.
The judge found that 11 of the 14 incidents of sexual harassment had been established.
These included uninvited verbal sexual advances; showing to the complainant a pornographic video; ogling breasts; unwelcome massaging; showing her a photo of himself naked; and sexual text messaging.
It was a relentless campaign of propositioning for sex.
Much of the evidence that decided the case came from a video camera PLP had set-up in the office, which surreptitiously took footage of members of his staff.
GLS had been friendly with PLP for some time and was also friendly with PLP's female partner.
This little troika had some strange habits. For instance, GLJ claimed that PLP's partner said to her:
"PLP called me and told me I have to convince you to sleep with him or he would get rid of me."
She was told that if she did not sleep with PLP, the solicitor might not sign off on her practical legal training.
Mr PLP claimed that Ms GLS had told him on a number of occasions that she would fabricate a sexual harassment claim against him.
She did send him friendly text messages and signed off with "x".
He claimed that she was the one making inappropriate sexually suggestive remarks, that she would love to sleep with him and that she wanted to "fuck" him on the conference table.
In a late statement PLP alleged that GLS had masturbated him in the office. This was the first time this allegation had surfaced.
He denied that there was a picture of him naked or that he had seen a video of him having sex with a Russian prostitute.
Yet this was contradicted by the video he covertly make of a conversation with Ms GLS on July 4, 2011.
GLS: You know when you go on holidays?
PLP: Holidays? Yeah, that was such a long time ago now.
GLS: No, last year, right, you went on several holidays.
PLP: Well, I fucked a prostitute, didn't I?
The video also had him referring to his penis:
"You know how big it is anyway. You saw it in the video, so you know it isn't as long as a black man's."
That rather spoiled his denial about the video.
Indeed, the judge said the video provided …
"highly reliable evidence of the knowledge and state of mind if the part of the parties on Monday 4 July 2011. There is no reference to any prior suggestion by Ms GLS that she wished to have sexual intercourse with Mr PLP. It is unlikely in the extreme that if Ms GLS had previously made daily inappropriate sexual and suggestive remarks including that she would love to sleep with him that he would not have referred to it.
The conversations between Ms GLS and Mr PLP are entirely inconsistent with Ms GLS previously making remarks that she sought to sleep with him, but are entirely consistent with Mr PLP having sought to have sexual intercourse with Ms GLS on previous occasions."
PLP's evidence was found to be "inherently implausible".
He refused to make any admissions until confronted in the witness box with no alternative. The judge did not believe him.
Garde added:
"Mr PLP's conduct on the evening of Monday 4 July 2011 was deplorable, and very far from that expected of a legal practitioner. He set up secret cameras to film and audio record the actions and conversations that occurred between him and Ms GLS. He did not disclose to her the existence of the cameras or the fact that their conversations were recorded ... Had she agreed to sexual intercourse, or performed any other sexual act, he would have been free to replay this at his leisure, and whenever he desired regardless of the embarrassment that would be suffered by her."
PLP's counsel sought to provide content to the July 4 session where the demand for sex was repeatedly made, and rejected, such as: GLS speaking with her face close to PLP; putting his hand around her neck; stroking the back of his neck; speaking in a baby voice; embracing him; rejecting his demand for "one fuck" by saying "no" in a soft voice.
The judge nonetheless found the sexual advances to be unwelcome.
The transcript of the Fourth of July badgering session goes on and on.
MR PLP: Yeah, I wouldn’t mind to fuck you on table, but ‑ ‑ ‑
MS GLS: No. The answer is no.
MR PLP: You’ve got to – you’ve got to – I don't know. It just seems to be a bit of sexual frustration there, anyway ‑ ‑ ‑
MS GLS: With who?
MR PLP: Between us. There just seems to be a bit of a little chemistry.
MS GLS: No.
MR PLP: There is and you’ve got to admit it, there is. At least if I had one fuck, it would be great.
MS GLS: Not even a chance.
...
MS GLS: No.
MR PLP: Because there’s sexual tension there.
MS GLS: Not from me there isn’t.
MR PLP: Yes there is, or there is for me.
MS GLS: Not for me.
If you have the stomach for more, the whole transcript is here.