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

This included taking his pants off during a card and drinking game, performing a cabaret dance with a rose between his teeth, and looking the other way when an explicit colouring book was circulated among his employees during a training session on mental health.

ACT’s Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) presidential member Geoffrey McCarthy said the matter was not about “morals and prudishness” but rather the “professional obligation on a legal practitioner” to behave consistently with what the community expects.

“The practitioner manifestly failed to behave in such a way,” he said.

The card game, which occurred on the first night as a “spontaneous rather than premeditated” activity, required the players to “do something” when a particular card was drawn from the deck.

When a card instructed the “oldest person at the table” to remove their pants, Aulich, then 48, took his jeans off.

Some of the employees tackled Aulich to the ground, and one of the women who attended tried to take the jeans from him.

VIEW ALL

Video footage of the game suggested Aulich “appeared to treat the episode as humorous”, as did some of the employees.

The ACT Law Society submitted Aulich “placed himself in a circumstance which allowed for accidental exposure of his penis while in the company of staff of the firm”.

Later that same night, footage captured Aulich performing the cabaret dance shirtless – but with suspenders and the rose – and behaving in a “bawdy manner” to laughter from some employees.

The following day, during a CPD event and the session on mental health, one employee circulated a colouring book containing “demeaning and sexualised words” about Aulich and the firm.

Aulich had no role in preparing the colouring book but “took no steps” to remove it from the employees and did not “admonish” the employee who circulated it in the first place.

The ACT Law Society became aware of the events at the retreat in April 2021 when an employee who attended but recently left the firm said she had an anxiety episode “due to both a pre-existing mental health condition and the behaviour” from the firm.

The solicitor said the behaviour at the retreat “also gives me concern for my reputation and future as a legal practitioner”.

McCarthy said Aulich “came out swinging” when he first learnt of the complaint and defended “every aspect of his conduct”.

Aulich told the Law Society the firm does “not shy away from the unusual culture” and was “unashamedly not like other law firms or public sector workplaces that are often conservative, that frown upon office ‘banter’, and that do not allow swearing and joking around”.

“Our closeness as a group and the fact that we all share in our personal lives and are friends means that we are all open with each other and comfortable talking about almost all topics.

“That openness and lack of restraint sometimes means at times the discussions are crass, vulgar and rude,” Aulich said.

Aulich accused the employee solicitor of seeking to “embarrass” him when her employment ended “acrimoniously”.

When he became aware disciplinary action would be filed, Aulich went back on his defence in a second letter, stating he reflected on the retreat and was “embarrassed and ashamed”.

“On proper reflection, I think I can say that my desire to be an unconventional, fun, non-stuffy and non-conservative law firm and allowing staff to ‘let off steam’ has clouded my judgment as to what is acceptable and what is not,” Aulich told the Law Society.

He added the conduct was “extraordinarily embarrassing”, and he would be “an idiot if I don’t see the wake-up call and respond to it”.

The ACT Law Society submitted there “could not reasonably be any doubt” that the conduct amounted to professional misconduct.

Referring to the colouring book incident, the Law Society said it should have been “immediately obvious” to Aulich that its circulation by an employee during the mental health session “was repugnant and inconsistent with the values of the legal profession”.

Aulich said he engaged an HR firm to overhaul the firm’s culture and would act on its recommendations.

“As the practitioner acknowledged subsequent to providing his first response, 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,” McCarthy said.

“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 can get hurt consequent upon behaviour of this kind.”