New Zealand Law Journal, April 2023: 79-85

This article analyses the disciplinary framework as it applies to sexual misconduct by New Zealand lawyers. It focuses on two connected themes. The first examines the historical development of the legal profession “by men for men” leading to a workplace culture that enables sexual misconduct. (Carroll Seron and others, “Persistence is cultural: professional socialization and the reproduction of sex segregation” (2016) 4(2) 'Work and Occupations' 178). Although this analysis situates sexual misconduct in the context of institutional failings, the 'Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006' (LCA) frames misconduct (including sexual misconduct) as the failings of individual practitioners. We draw on a previous analysis of lawyers’ sexual misconduct decisions from Australian cases from 2000 to 2020 which found that sexual misconduct was often framed as the character flaws of practitioners, without discussion of the wider prevalence of violence against women (Jennifer Schulz, Christine Forster and Kate Diesfeld, “The discipline of, and failure to sanction, sexual misconduct by Australian legal practitioners” (2022) 'Legal Ethics' 1). The second theme analyses the LCA’s separation of misconduct between the professional and the personal domains, shielding private sexual misconduct from professional discipline, unless so serious that the lawyer is considered not a “fit and proper person”. (Authors' abstract). Record #8177