It has been a year since the Worker Protection Act (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) came into force, introducing a legal duty for employers to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.
Unlike previous frameworks, which largely placed the burden on individuals to report inappropriate behaviour after it had occurred, this legislation shifted the responsibility onto employers to take proactive steps in preventing sexual harassment from ever happening.
For legal employers, preventing harassment is now a commitment that must reach every chambers, firm or legal business. But what does proper implementation look like, and where are the risks of falling short?
Embedding Leadership and Accountability
More often than not, any major changes starts with leadership. Senior figures, including heads of chambers and senior management, are expected to do more than sign off on HR initiatives. They have to model the culture they expect others to uphold. This means publicly reinforcing expectations around respectful behaviour, actively engaging with staff on these issues, and ensuring that values around preventing harassment are embedded into the organisation.
Where leadership is absent or disengaged, any policies or procedures that have been implemented lose their power, and it is this gap between values and visible behaviour that leaves many organisations legally and reputationally vulnerable.
Policies and Procedures
Workplace policies on harassment are now under more scrutiny than ever before, and generic documents are no longer enough. Clear, detailed anti-harassment policies must explain what constitutes unacceptable conduct, provide examples relevant to the working environment, and outline the exact process for reporting, investigating, and resolving complaints.
These documents need to be easily accessible and communicated proactively, not buried in onboarding materials. Legal employers must also be able to demonstrate that policies apply across the organisation, to all relevant parties from senior management to junior staff, as well as consultants and other third-party suppliers.
Training and Development
Under the Act, employers are expected to provide regular, high-quality training that enables people to understand their rights, responsibilities and the risks involved in workplace harassment. This goes far beyond tick-box training courses.
Effective training should be mandatory for all members, staff and pupils, and tailored to reflect their role in prevention. Clerks and staff in particular need support in how to respond appropriately to concerns, escalate issues and ensure early interventions are handled sensitively.
The Worker Protection Act also requires employers to review and refresh their training regularly. In practice, this means keeping clear records of completion and evaluating the impact of training, while ensuring content is updated in line with any critical feedback or new case trends.
Reporting Channels and Investigation
Organisations are expected to make it as straightforward as possible for individuals to raise concerns and report problems. In practice, that means providing multiple, clearly signposted reporting channels, including routes that are confidential or anonymous. More importantly, however, they must have confidence that reports will be taken seriously, investigated thoroughly and resolved fairly.
Creating that trust depends on how consistently reports are handled. When they are minimised or mishandled, it sends a clear message that any provisions established for dealing with harassment are simply performative , and that risk is likely to be noted by current and future individuals in the workforce.
The Next Generation of Legal Professionals
More recently in Baroness Harriet Harman’s review of bullying harassment, and sexual harassment at the Bar, protecting the Bar’s next generation was a major talking point. Aspiring barristers, pupils and junior practitioners are at a heightened risk of harassment, and their dependence on senior members for opportunities creates an unequal power dynamic that can be easily exploited.
There are some areas here where chambers can make a difference here. Baroness Harman called for a ban on Supervisor-Pupil relationships as a means of combatting the abuse of powerful positions in chambers. Sets could also look arrange mini-pupillages only through formal processes, avoiding informal invitation from individual members.
Understanding the Consequences
The legal and reputational risks of non-compliance are very clear. The Worker Protection Act gives tribunals the power to increase compensation by up to 25% where an employer has failed to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment. Given that there is no cap on compensation for harassment claims, this can result in a heavy financial penalty.
Beyond this, the damage to morale within the set and to its reputation can be far-reaching. A high-profile incident can fatally damage relationships between clients and colleagues alike.
