Senior solicitor reprimanded for inappropriate comments to probation officer

Avatar photo

By Legal Cheek on

8

Showed her pic of naked woman

Courtroom door
A senior solicitor has been reprimanded after making a series of inappropriate comments towards a more junior female probation officer.

Geoffrey White, who was admitted to the roll in 1993, faced a disciplinary tribunal after two separate incidents involving the same female probation officer at Crawley Magistrates Court.

The actions date back to May 2021, where White made “inappropriate and/or unwanted comments” towards the officer, referred to in the ruling as Person A. This included showing the unnamed woman an image on his phone of a naked woman lying down on a table with bottles covering her breasts, before saying to probation office that “it looks a bit like you”.

Person A stated that this made her feel “awkward, embarrassed and uncomfortable because the person in the picture was naked”. She added that “she did not know how to react”, found the situation “all very weird”, and “was not sure why” White had shown her the image.

Two months later, White was representing a client who had been arrested for allegedly having sex on a train. While the court was not in session, he attempted to joke about the offence with a senior prosecutor, saying: “[Person A] knows all about that, standard probation practice.”

Person A took this as a suggestion that she had sex on a train all the time, and that it was ordinary practice for probation officers to do this. This, she said, made her feel “really uncomfortable because it is a totally outrageous thing to say and not at all appropriate”.

 The 2025 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

These actions, the Solicitor’s Disciplinary Tribunal said in its judgment, breached White’s duties to act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession, and to act in a way that encourages equality, diversity, and inclusion.

In mitigation it was accepted that White apologised to Person A at the end of 2021, and that this was acknowledged. In his apology he said that he had “just wanted to make people laugh but that he had got it wrong with her”, before adding “something along the lines of: ‘everything I do is to make people laugh, with you I got it catastrophically wrong and I am truly sorry. We will let the SRA do whatever they are going to do’”.

It as also accepted that White’s behaviour changed following Person A’s complaint about the comments, and that her view was that he made “specific effort” not to make inappropriate comments towards her.

White also confirmed to the tribunal that he not received any specific diversity and inclusion or workplace sensitivity training. He explained that he had qualified during a time when “robing room banter” was common, but that the “world had moved on and he with it as evidenced by the absence of further complaints”.

The tribunal considered that the risk of repetition was very low.

Along with being reprimanded White was ordered to pay an agreed sum of £12,000 in costs.

8 Comments

Clown world

How does nonsense like this generate 12k costs?

Ronnie

The SRA has to fund its offices somehow. Clearly the solicitor admitted it all and probably would have agreed to a fine.

Anonymous

Don’t understand the relevance of the ‘junior’ bit.

Ronnie

It is assumed that junior members of staff will be more vulnerable due to their experience and status.

D

Claimed costs were actually £18,262.80. Incredible really. (see para 40 of Judgment).

Someone’s ‘avin a larf!

£12K is utterly ridiculous.

How on earth do they come up with a bill of costs like that for an uncontested matter?

Al

The costs in the Philip Shiner disciplinary were £723,000. And he’d conceded he should be struck off.

So much focus on the costs

Which I’m sure are standard, considering they tell us how to bill. And we charge absurd sums ourselves. Maybe let’s have some more worry over how sexual harassment still happens even in a court setting? This is truly appalling.

Join the conversation