A law firm partner who made antisemitic remarks and inappropriately touched junior female colleagues has been suspended for a year.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ruled that public confidence in the profession demanded that Ryan Sean Jack Williams, admitted in 2013, be penalised, but that his conduct did not require him to be struck off.
Williams was a litigation solicitor with London firm SBP Law when he committed the misconduct at various points during 2021. Several former colleagues gave evidence about comments he had made and how he had touched several of them in an unwanted and/or sexual manner at the staff Christmas party.
It was alleged that he referred to Jewish people having lots of money during a private conversation with a colleague. A few months late during an office party, he repeatedly used the ‘n’ word and said to that same colleague that ‘racism to Jews doesn’t exist, antisemitism doesn’t exist, you’re all on top’.
Williams was described as being ‘drunk, boisterous and louder than usual’ during this party and spoke about how two fellow workers should sleep together. It was alleged that he had told one of them ‘what are you waiting for, you just need to bend her over’.
The tribunal further heard that at one point he went up close to a junior colleague and whispered ‘you know you want me’.
At the Christmas party two months later, he told a colleague they had ‘only got your job because you are Jewish’ and referred to another staff member’s ‘big Jew hands’.
The tribunal heard that at the same event, Williams got so drunk that he urinated on his clothes and could not get off the floor. He pinched one colleague’s bottom and slapped another woman’s inner thigh, both of which were found to be sexually motivated.
Evidence was given to the tribunal that junior staff were affected upon returning to work following the event and were visibly distressed.
Williams denied making antisemitic comments and using racist words, questioning the accounts of complainants and saying he had been misheard or misinterpreted. He denied touching colleagues inappropriately and said this must have been incidental contact in a crowded environment.
The tribunal believed the complainants and found the comments and inappropriate touching had happened as reported.
In mitigation, Williams’ representative said the misconduct, whilst serious, was alleged to have occurred within a limited and defined period at social events, and did not involve clients, dishonesty, or sustained exploitation.
He had no prior regulatory findings or complaints and this misconduct was out of character. Medical evidence was also submitted.
The tribunal agreed with Williams that he should undertake remedial treatment prior to any return to practice. He must also pay costs which will be subject to detailed assessment.
