The allegations in the Navani case are serious.

For those who have not followed it, the case concerned a partner found by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to have engaged in bullying, harassment and inappropriate conduct towards multiple junior female colleagues over a number of years. The SRA is appealing the leniency of the SDT’s sanction.

Reading the judgment, what struck me was not so much where the behaviour ended up, awful as it was.

It was where it started.

Many of the behaviours will feel uncomfortably familiar to many people who have worked in law.

A partner or business services leader who:

• expects unquestioning compliance
• uses career progression as leverage
• isolates people from colleagues
• excludes individuals from opportunities
• humiliates people
• creates uncertainty about where they stand
• makes crass comments on appearance or personal circumstances
• makes people feel that challenging them comes at a cost

In other words:
A "when I say jump, you say 'how high?'" leader.

The problem is that behaviours like these are often not recognised for what they are.

They are explained away.

"They are under pressure."
"They don't mean anything by it."
"They're fine when you get to know them."
"They don't suffer fools gladly."
"They get results."
“They are not bossy, they are the boss.”
"You should reflect on your own role in this."

Over the years, my teams and I have dealt with thousands of serious workplace issues.

Almost all of them had a backstory.

A behaviour that became normalised.
A concern that was rationalised.
An exception that was made.
Silent fear.
Someone who generated repeated fallout but was protected because of their perceived value, influence or relationships.
Someone for whom there was always a reason the normal rules did not quite apply.

Viewed individually, incidents can seem isolated.

Viewed together, they often reveal a pattern.

It is easy to assume that the behaviours described in the Navani case could not happen in a modern law firm.

That is a dangerous assumption.

These behaviours are not confined to one type of individual or one type of firm. They emerge wherever power is insufficiently controlled and accountability becomes optional.

The biggest risk is often not the behaviour itself. It's the story the firm tells itself about the behaviour.

The lullaby that puts leaders to sleep at the wheel.

Therefore, every so often, firms should ask themselves:

Who keeps generating fallout?

Where is inappropriate behaviour most likely to be excused or ignored?

And what early signs might we be missing?