A former Waikato lawyer who repeatedly exposed his female staff to pornographic material on his computer can now be publicly identified after abandoning his legal fight to keep his name permanently suppressed.
According to a report by Catrin Owen of Stuff, the man, Damian Botherway, was previously the principal of a boutique commercial law firm in Waikato and also worked as a premier division rugby union referee. He had been suspended from practising law for three months last year after the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal found him guilty of misconduct.
Although the tribunal had refused permanent name suppression, Botherway could not initially be named because he planned to appeal the decision. However, his lawyer, Briar Webster, confirmed on Monday that the appeal had been withdrawn and that Botherway had no comment to make.
The tribunal described Botherway’s behaviour as “egregious”, stating that female staff members at his firm were frequently exposed to pornographic material on his computer screen while working in the office. According to the decision, employees regularly saw explicit images when entering his office, Catrin Owen of Stuff has reported.
“Although he ‘clicked out’ of objectionable internet sites when staff entered his office room, they were confronted with snippets and were acutely aware of his interest in sexualised objectification of women.
“Consequently, they felt horror, shock, disgust, discomfort, embarrassment, and shame. Their work environment was thus rendered toxic and emotionally unsafe,” the decision said, as quoted by Stuff.
Botherway operated as a sole practitioner and had no workplace policies or procedures to address such behaviour. When the firm later moved to a new office where his computer screen faced the doorway, staff were even more directly exposed to the explicit content.
“He resisted suggestions that he rearrange his room, so his screen was not visible on entry. Although (and because) he ‘clicked off’ images when, or soon after, staff entered, we cannot imagine that he could not have been aware of the situation. In our view, to claim otherwise amounts to wilful blindness,” the tribunal said, Stuff has quoted.
The issue came to light in November 2022 when a junior staff member raised concerns with a senior colleague. Botherway was confronted and admitted he had an addiction, promising to seek help. However, two months later another employee saw explicit material on his computer screen again. He initially denied it before later acknowledging the incident after further complaints.
During the disciplinary hearing, Botherway admitted the charge of misconduct.
“We find that, because all the staff members were female and he, their employer, male, both their distress and their hesitance in confronting him are readily explicable,” as quoted by Stuff.
The tribunal said there was a clear power imbalance in the workplace, leaving staff worried about how raising the issue might affect their jobs.
“[The lawyer’s] insensitivity and lack of thought about the effect his conduct would produce in his employees was remarkably obtuse. That he suffered from a compulsion to engage in the conduct does not mean he was incapable of realising his viewing was repeatedly on show to his employees,” Stuff has quoted.
Following complaints in early 2023, Botherway began working from home. By late April, his employees had left the firm and filed complaints with the New Zealand Law Society Complaints Service.
Evidence from Botherway’s therapist suggested his behaviour was linked to addiction and depression.
“Although it is little comfort to his employees, we accept that he was not in a healthy frame of mind during the period. We applaud his having taken steps to address it and are pleased to learn of the progress he has made,” the tribunal said, Stuff has quoted
According to Stuff, in its final ruling, the tribunal suspended Botherway from practising law for three months, issued a censure, and barred him from practising independently unless authorised. He was also ordered to pay $5000 each to two employees who lodged complaints, along with $20,500 in costs.