§ discipline
‹ Back

Samuel Maurice Charkham

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number12088/2020
Date01/01/2020
OutcomeFine

Allegation / charges

Breaches

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

SanctionFine
FineGBP 30,000
CostsGBP 21,000
Dishonesty foundNo

Samuel Maurice Charkham, a partner specialising in conveyancing at Simkins LLP, was found to have committed serious racial and sexual misconduct toward two female employees. The Tribunal found proved that he told a racially abusive joke at a Christmas dinner, donned an envelope claiming KKK membership directed at a black secretary (both racially motivated), touched Person A's bottom on more than one occasion (sexually motivated), and touched Person B's backside with his hand. Breaches of Principles 2, 6 and 9 were found. No finding of dishonesty was made. The Tribunal found a lack of insight and rejected his 'playful/old-fashioned humour' explanations. It imposed a Level 4 fine of £30,000, recommended EDI training, and ordered costs of £21,000 (reduced from the £29,950 claimed).

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Conduct repeated despite a prior warning/apology requirement after the Christmas incident
  • Power imbalance between a partner and junior secretary/accounts staff
  • Touching of Person B occurred shortly after the Firm's investigation into similar conduct toward Person A
  • Attempts to interfere with witnesses (contacting Person B to withdraw complaint; emailing during investigation)
  • Witness statements of his witnesses were led by his own questions and language
  • Lack of insight; sought to minimise conduct as 'old-fashioned' jokes and 'playful' humour
  • Profound and lasting harm to Person A

Mitigating factors:

  • 43 years' previously unblemished career with no prior disciplinary findings
  • Cooperation with the Applicant and Tribunal
  • Conduct largely spontaneous rather than premeditated (except KKK incident)
  • No pressure put on Person A to keep silent
  • Tribunal found low risk of repetition and no risk to the public

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/12088/