The Lawyer “Boys’ Club”

The legal profession has made significant progress in moving beyond its historical “boys’ club” culture, but inappropriate workplace behaviour remains a professional conduct concern. In this ethics column, Professor Gino Dal Pont examines disciplinary decisions involving sexist and bawdy behaviour, highlighting why humour, apparent consent and a lack of intent to offend do not excuse conduct that falls below professional standards. The cases reinforce the importance of personal accountability, particularly for senior practitioners, and the obligation to uphold public confidence in the legal profession.

The legal profession has long been associated with being a “boy’s club” (although it is hardly unique in this space). In the 1870s the Supreme Court of the United States denied women the right to practice a profession, reasoning that the “natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life”.[1] Womens’ admission to law practice in Australia was likewise punctuated by opposition, including by the judiciary,[2] until statute altered the position, progressively between the jurisdictions, in the early 20th century.[3]

This inauspicious start has, over time, often proven a difficult paradigm to shift. Both within and outside the legal profession, the boys’ club might be manifested in one or more ways. This might include, says one commentator, “those informal social networks of male friendships”, wherein “they promote from within and provide networking and professional mentoring opportunities that are simply not available to anyone who isn’t a part of them”. She adds that “since so many are also havens for toxicity, relying on a degree of sexist humor and objectification for their camaraderie, women are rarely admitted”.[4]

In this column I will focus on the latter, as it appears that some legal practitioners have, when it comes to their behaviour, overlooked the fact that women nowadays form part of the social (and professional) network of the legal profession. A New South Wales case that secured significant airplay, Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v EFA,[5] involved a barrister who, while at a barristers’ clerks’ social function, in jest made a lewd gesture and statement to a female clerk, who did not see any funny side to this behaviour. That the barrister was inebriated at the time did not preclude a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct, for which he was reprimanded. The finding and sanction were affirmed on appeal.[6]

That the behaviour was not intended to offend, and may even be seen by some to be an expression of humour or comradery, provides no justification for conduct of this kind. This point was forcefully brought home in a 2024 tribunal decision in Council of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory v LP 182022.[7]

The disciplinary action, arising out of events at a law firm’s CPD weekend held at an external venue, targeted the behaviour of the respondent, being the most senior (and oldest) practitioner in the firm. Thirteen of the firm’s employees attended, 11 of whom were women. During the first evening the attendees participated in a card and drinking game, wherein a card was drawn “which instructed the oldest person at the table to remove his/her pants”. In response to “urging” from the other participants, the respondent lowered his jeans and was tackled to the ground by some of the attendees. Once the jeans were removed, one of the female attendees tried to take the jeans from the respondent, which he resisted. A video-recording of the event showed that the respondent and at least some attendees found the episode humorous.

Later in the evening, while around a campfire, the respondent performed a cabaret-style dance at the invitation and with the encouragement of others. The dance was performed shirtless, during which the respondent behaved in a “bawdy manner”. Video footage showed some attendees laughing during the performance.

Arising out of these events, the respondent ultimately admitted guilt to two charges of professional misconduct, for which he was both reprimanded and fined ($20,000). What influenced this characterisation of the behaviour was the respondent’s “position of seniority and authority within the Firm which carried higher levels of accountability and responsibility than might be expected of others”.[8] Conduct of this kind should not, the tribunal wrote, be viewed as “harmless, consensual, ribald frivolity however much it might have been seen that way at the time”.[9] This, the tribunal added, dovetailed into the question of reputation:[10]

… practitioners who behave in a way that brings community disrespect upon themselves risk consequential disrespect for the law. It is not a matter of morals or prudishness. It is about the professional obligation on a legal practitioner, objectively judged, to behave in a way consistent with the kind of behaviour the community expects and respects from a legal practitioner. The practitioner manifestly failed to behave in such a way.

If the foregoing is any guide, the notion that “boys will be boys” within the profession wears thin in the modern era.

September 2026

Gino Dal Pont
Professor
Faculty of Law
University of Tasmania

[1] Bradwell v Illinois (1873) 83 US 130 at 141.

[2] See, for example, Re Edith Haynes (1904) 6 WALR 209.

[3] See K Mason, Lawyers Then and Now — An Australian Legal Miscellany (Federation Press, 2012), pp 131–133.

[4] L Elting, “How to Navigate a Boys’ Club Culture”, Forbes, 27 July 2018. See https://www.forbes.com/sites/lizelting/2018/07/27/how-to-navigate-a-boys-club-culture/

[5] Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v EFA [2021] NSWCATOD 21; Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v EFA (No 2) [2021] NSWCATOD 84.

[6] Council of New South Wales Bar Association v EFA (a pseudonym) [2021] NSWCA 339.

[7] [2024] ACAT 43.

[8] Ibid at [82].

[9] Ibid at [83].

[10] Ibid at [84].