Bahl launches fresh legal action

Law Society Council member and former Vice-President Kamlesh Bahl has issued fresh employment proceedings against the Society for alleged sex discrimination, victimisation, harassment and breaches of her human rights.

All of the allegations were strongly denied by the Society this week.

The move came ahead of the Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing - scheduled for 7 July - of the appeals in Ms Bahl's first action against the Law Society.

Ms Bahl - who was re-elected to the council last year to represent ethnic minority solicitors - named a series of respondents in the latest action, including the Society's main board, its chief executive, Janet Paraskeva, and former President Michael Mathews.

A spokesman for Ms Bahl confirmed that Mr Mathews has been included following his role in overseeing the handling of a complaint of harassment made against the main board earlier this year.

In a statement, Ms Bahl said she would be 'seeking declarations' that the Society was 'institutionally discriminatory' and that an inquiry should be set up to investigate her complaints of bullying by the main board.

She would also seek aggravated and punitive damages, and costs.

Responding in a statement, the Society said the main board 'refutes any allegation of bullying' and that the Society as a whole 'denies any allegation of discrimination or victimisation'.

It said there was protection from discrimination for all council members.

The Society also said it is still trying to resolve the first action through mediation.

'The Society stands ready to continue attempts to settle this dispute outside the courts,' it said.

The first case followed the findings of the Griffiths inquiry in early 2000.

Its report found that Ms Bahl, when vice-president, had bullied staff.

She resigned from the council following the results of the inquiry and launched an employment tribunal claim.

In July 2001, the tribunal found the Society vicariously liable for the discriminatory behaviour of former President Robert Sayer and former secretary-general Jane Betts.

However, it said that, on the balance of probabilities, they were not conscious of their behaviour being in part motivated by either race or sex bias.

The tribunal also found that Ms Bahl had lied under oath during the hearing.

Both sides are appealing.

Jonathan Ames