A veteran in-house solicitor has been fined £15,000 and ordered to pay £16,000 in costs after admitting he created and used a series of rude nicknames for colleagues.
Leo Foster, who worked at the bank BNP Paribas, referred to others in the team with names such as ‘Mad Paul’, ‘Pol Pot’, ‘The idiot’, ‘Jabba the Hutt’ and ‘The Twittering Fool’.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard that Foster, admitted in 1988, admitted that he had on numerous occasions over the course of many months, used inappropriate, unprofessional and rude nicknames for his colleagues. He accepted that the individuals did not consent to the use of these nicknames.
Foster also created the nickname ‘Hu She’ and used it on at least 12 different occasions. This referred to a colleague, an East Asian solicitor, who pronounced her name ‘Who-ee’ and Foster said the nickname was based on the ‘Who he’ joke in Private Eye magazine. He accepted it could be interpreted as mocking or ridiculing a Chinese name but he stressed there was never any racist intention.
The allegations arose from a complaint by another former colleague, Person A, in her exit interview. The bank then held a disciplinary meeting and the matter came to the attention of the Solicitors Regulation Authority in January 2022 when an article was published in CityAM entitled ‘BNP Paribas London executive keeps job despite naming Asian colleague “Hu She”’.
Person A, the bank and a member of the public reported the issue after the article was published. Foster negotiated an exit from the bank and retired in 2022.
It was accepted by Foster that nicknames such as Pol Pot and Jabba the Hutt were inappropriate, unprofessional and offensive. The SRA had issued a warning notice in 2019 about avoiding derogatory, puerile or inappropriate correspondence, including through internal emails.
Foster acknowledged that even if the recipients of his emails shared his ‘humour’, this did not excuse such behaviour.
On other occasions, the solicitor described senior colleagues as c***s and asked whether another was autistic. He wrote one email which read ‘What the fuck is this?’ and another which entirely consisted of ‘Looks like a bunch of cocks’.
Foster’s lawyer told the SDT he was extremely apologetic and had not intended to cause anyone offence or hurt. The misconduct had taken place during a stressful time and were a small fraction of the correspondence he sent. It was plain that the words used by Foster were a result of his frustration and irritation at the decisions being made by the management team.
The tribunal noted Foster was generally disgruntled with management changes at the bank but said he was an extremely experienced solicitor in a position of authority.
The judgment added: ‘Mr Foster had found the changes to the working environment difficult, but he had failed to handle this with the standards expected of a solicitor of his experience and standing.’
