Public Reprimand and $20,000 Fine for Lawyer’s Behaviour at CPD Weekend

Council of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory v LP 182022 Benjamin Aulich (Occupational Discipline) [2024] ACACT 23

We’ve all been at a social gathering where someone has had too many drinks and made a complete clown of themselves.  Such conduct can lead to more than just embarrassment and a hangover where the social occasion is also a professional event. 

Benjamin Aulich, principal lawyer at Aulich Lawyers was found guilty of professional misconduct and received a public reprimand and a $20,000 fine for his behaviour during a continuing professional development weekend training retreat with his employees in February 2021.

Video footage of a card game recorded Mr Aulich removing his pants and later performing a shirtless cabaret dance with a rose between his teeth. The ACT Law Society became aware of the events at the retreat when an employee who attended and had an anxiety episode at the event, later leaving the firm, made a complaint.

During a session on mental health at the CPD event another employee from Aulich Lawyers made alterations to a colouring book such that it contained “demeaning and sexualized words” about Mr Aulich and the firm. Mr Aulich took no steps to remove the book or discipline the employee who circulated it.

The practitioner was initially bullish in defending the complaint and relied on the circumstance that the CPD weekend was “held away from Canberra and on a private property to ensure that drinking, silly dances and other rude behaviour would be private and amongst the … firm only”.

The initial attitude to the complaint is perhaps telling as to the pervading culture that persists in some work environments.

When disciplinary action was filed Mr Aulich reflected on his conduct and told the Law Society that in his desire to be an unconventional fun, non-stuffy and non-conservative law firm and allowing staff to ‘let off steam’ his judgment had become clouded as to what is acceptable and what is not, particularly in light of his role as a senior practitioner and Partner.

The practitioner said that “some of what I think we need to do” at the Firm included “a complete review of our culture from an external private company”, the cost of which would be borne by him; a willingness to engage in personal counselling regarding some of the issues raised; and an intention to “get some assistance about my drinking”. The practitioner stated: “This is extra-ordinarily embarrassing for me … I understand I deserve the embarrassment, and I am an idiot if I don’t see the wake-up call and respond to it”.

The ACT’s Civil and Administrative Tribunal presidential member, Geoffrey McCarthy found: “The orderly conduct of our community depends on respect for the rule of law. Legal practitioners play a vital and integral role in upholding and maintaining that respect. By extension, the community’s respect for legal practitioners is integral to their respect for the law and the rule of law. Conversely, practitioners who behave in a way that brings community disrespect upon themselves risk consequential disrespect for the law. It is not a matter of morals or prudishness. It is about the professional obligation on a legal practitioner, objectively judged, to behave in a way consistent with the kind of behaviour the community expects and respects from a legal practitioner. The practitioner manifestly failed to behave in such a way.”

The Tribunal found that conduct of the kind that occurred should not be characterised as harmless, consensual, ribald frivolity however much it might have been seen that way at the time. Standards of behaviour are not an end in themselves. Rather, they serve important professional and practical purposes. As this case demonstrated, however unintentionally, sometimes people get hurt consequent upon behaviour of this kind.

The conduct amounted to professional misconduct and was considered “inconsistent with the values of the legal system.”

The submissions and findings in the case in relation to the imposition of a fine and the appropriate quantum of that fine also make for interesting reading.

It bears remembering that what would otherwise constitute private unimpugnable conduct can attract professional consequences from the legal regulator when the conduct occurs at a professional event.