Registered foreign lawyer
Decision - Agreement
Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
Outcome date: 6 August 2019
Published date: 28 August 2019
Firm or organisation at date of publication
Name: Hogan Lovells International LLP
Address(es): Holborn Viaduct, London, EC1A 2FG
Firm ID: 449616
This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
1. Agreed outcome
1.1 Mr Sylvain Gerald Dhennin, a Registered Foreign Lawyer and a partner of Hogan Lovells International LLP, agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of his conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):
- he is rebuked
- to the publication of this agreement and
- he will pay the costs of the investigation of £600.
2. Summary of Facts
An Employment Tribunal judgment dated 21 September 2018 (Employment Tribunal Judgment) found that Mr Dhennin:
- directly discriminated against his children’s nanny on the grounds of pregnancy and
- unfairly dismissed her.
2.2 Mr Dhennin was ordered to pay:
- damages of £6,500
- interest of £497.20
- compensation of £11,371.43
2.3 Mr Dhennin did not appeal the Employment Tribunal Judgment.
2.4 Mr Dhennin did not inform the SRA of the Employment Tribunal Judgment.
3.1 Mr Dhennin makes the following admissions which the SRA accepts:
- by discriminating against the nanny and unfairly dismissing her, he has breached Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 and
- by failing to notify the SRA of the Employment Tribunal Judgment, he has breached Outcome 10.3 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.
4. Why the agreed outcome is appropriate
4.1 The SRA considers that the agreed outcome is appropriate because the conditions in rule 3.1 of the SRA Disciplinary Rules 2011 are met, in that:
- the conduct caused loss or significant inconvenience to the nanny.
- the agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest. The rebuke marks the seriousness of Mr Dhennin’s conduct and the impact it had on the nanny. The SRA also acknowledges that his conduct in this case was unconnected with his legal practice as a Registered Foreign Lawyer and as a partner and there was no lack of integrity on his part.
- the conduct was neither trivial nor justifiably inadvertent.
4.2 In deciding that the agreed outcome is proportionate, the SRA has taken into account the admissions made by Mr Dhennin and the following mitigation which he has put forward:
- challenging personal circumstances
- he paid the monies ordered by the Employment Tribunal Judgment promptly
- he has cooperated with the SRA’s investigation and
- he has a clear regulatory history.
4.3 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process.
5. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this Agreement
5.1 Mr Dhennin agrees that he will not act in any way which is inconsistent with this agreement such as, for example, by denying the admissions made in this agreement.
5.2 If Mr Dhennin acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be considered further by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary outcome or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011.
6.1 Mr Dhennin agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of £600. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.