The cross-appellant lawyer appealed a 12-month suspension imposed by the Law Society Appeal Panel for professional misconduct involving sexual harassment.
He also sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding the impact of the proceedings on his life.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it of limited value.
However, the Court allowed the cross-appeal on penalty, finding the 12-month suspension unreasonable given the historical context of the misconduct (1988-1993), comparable cases, and mitigating factors.
The penalty was reduced to a three-month suspension.